Second Amendment Blog
Could we please …
Posted by: Sebastian on 
Jul 23rd, 2008 | 
Filed under: How Not to Win
… not make gun owners look like lunatics in the media for all to see? You know what ends up happening when the majority of the people in this country who don’t own gun, and don’t care much about gun rights, start believing that gun owners are out to foment a civil war? They start agreeing to take our guns away.
Some may want an armed revolution, but I don’t want to see it come to that. It is not inevitable or necessary at this point in time. I’d prefer to solve this problem politically, and guys like this aren’t helping. We’re winning right now, both politically, and the hearts and minds. Could we please not do stupid shit like this to fuck it up? Thank you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 am
[...] We’re here, we’re . . . well, you get the idea. [...]
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
The press seeks these people out. I was once at a VCDL meeting (for the Bloomberg Gun Giveaway) and several members of the ‘press’ tried to interview (on camera) the (very obviously) mentally challenged (grown) child of one of the other attendees. The press have ZERO integrity. For every letter like this (there was probably only the one) the editors of this paper no doubt put a hundred reasonable appeals in the circular file…
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:22 am
They most definitely do, anon… and I have no doubt the Madison press was eager to print this, precisely because most people will think “Man, gun owners are fucking nuts!”
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:32 am
In what way is the writer trying to foment a civil war?
Words mean things, and PSH from our side is still PSH.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:33 am
I think it was David Hardy who said they used to go to events in camouflage or wearing some obnoxious fatigues. then, when the press came up and started rolling cameras, they’d pull it off to reveal a nice suit and introduce themselves as ‘dr. so and so from such and such law school’.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
I didn’t say he was, but I said if people get that impression, we’re toast. A lot of these guys believe that you have to draw the line in the sand now, and dare the voting public to cross it. That’s essentially what Mr. Vanderboegh is doing here.
Threats of violence in response to political action don’t go over well with the public in a stable Republic. I think it actually makes the likelihood of failing to get a political solution far less likely, because it will turn the public off to the message, and scare them into electing representative who will get these dangerous gun owners “under control.”
There does need to be a line in the sand, but now is not the time to draw it. You do that when your back is against the wall, not when you’re winning the fight politically.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:51 am
There’s a difference between the press actively seeking the funny looking ones out at events and our side purposely trying to raise hell by throwing around threats about an upcoming civil war.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I’d rather they find people like this, occasionally, as long as they can’t accurately tie them to anyone who’s important.
No, seriously. The American public follows the fallacy of the golden mean. If the craziest gun nut around is talking about blocking the assault weapon ban, he or she will be seen as crazy as it gets. If the craziest gun nut is frothing at the mouth about machine guns, there’s something in the middle that is great for compromise.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
I’m not sure that most Americans really follow that fallacy, so much as electoral politics just tends to end up there. I don’t fault anyone for a strongly held conviction about registering their guns. I don’t even really fault anyone for a belief that arms confiscation be resisted violently. But it’s one thing to believe it. It’s another thing to go to the media and say it. Especially when registration isn’t really on the table politically.
American politics gravitates toward the middle because most Americans aren’t extreme about issues. You can move issues your way, or against you, by bringing people into your tent. Extremists tend to push people out of the tent, which is why they aren’t helpful when it comes to political battles.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Mike Vanderbough as adopted the position as the Malcolm X of the gun-rights fight. He’s as extreme and in-your-face as he can be, and he revels in “frightening the white people.” He is the author of a book being published in parts on the web, Absolved. Give it a read. It’s further out there than John Ross’s Unintended Consequences.
There’s a group of people, and as far as I can tell it’s growing, that not only believes that we’re headed for violent revolution, they want it.
And what scares me is, sometimes I think they’re right.
Don’t be surprised that the media gloms onto the extremes. Sensationalism sells.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:51 pm
When someone has entered a house uninvited and is told leave or get shot, do you say “The house owner is making ‘gun owners’ look like lunatics”?
Mike is just giving some people fair warning that they are about to do something that will bring about unpleasant results for _everyone_. The “3 percent” figure may or may not be correct; what is _certain_ is that the number is large enough that the result of pushing us to far will be catastrophic. Some issues truly are NOT up for a vote: force will be required and some people _will_ die if the issue is pushed.
3%
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Gonna have to agree with bob on this. For that matter, are you saying that if the cops came around to every residence and forced registering of all guns and owners you would just let them? A big problem with this blurb is that they don’t show the preceding letter. And searching by Bialek just shows me that the guy makes a habit of sending in letters to the editor, I can’t find his comments on guns.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I think we need extremists out there pushing the gun rights envelope, but I don’t think “try taking my gun and I’ll kill you” is the extremism we need. We need people proposing things like requiring everyone to be armed with a full auto, so that the rest of us don’t seem so extreme when we propose the compromise of allowing those who choose to carry concealed without a licensse. It’s sort of an incrementalist approach.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Check out westernrifleshooters (blogspot).
III
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Bob R:
When someone has entered a house uninvited and is told leave or get shot, do you say “The house owner is making ‘gun owners’ look like lunatics”?
There’s a difference between defending yourself and your home from an intruder and suggesting that you’ll start a civil war if the political process doesn’t go your way. And also, in that instance, there’s a big difference between believing it and saying it. Would I be crazy to say such a thing to a burglar? No. And few other citizens would think I was.
If I write a letter to the editor suggesting that someone better never break into my home, because if they do, I’ll shoot them dead. That would be seen as extreme.
Additionally, it doesn’t really matter whether the paradox makes logical sense. The public view is what it is.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Gonna have to agree with bob on this. For that matter, are you saying that if the cops came around to every residence and forced registering of all guns and owners you would just let them?
I don’t think we should take that lying down, but I also think shooting the cops coming to do it won’t accomplish anything. In fact, the most likely reaction is going to be “See, we told you these people were dangerous.” I think there are ways to escalate the situation, without bringing it to outright shooting, but that’s another conversation.
But the point is, we’re not at that point yet. In fact, we’re not anywhere close.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I think we need extremists out there pushing the gun rights envelope
Yes, you do. But you have to be smart about how you push it. Writing to a newspaper and telling them you’ll start a civil war if things don’t go your way is not a productive method of pushing the envelope.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I’m with Mike. Our backs aren’t quite all the way up against the wall yet. we do have a few inches. But it’s close enough.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Sebastian, with all due respect, you’re playing into the hands of the enemies. If national registration and licensing passed, being a patently unjust and unconstitutional malum prohibitum law, it could not bind in conscience. Because it cannot bind in conscience, no one with his moral sense screwed on straight could condemn another who chose not to comply. But what would happen to those who choose not to comply? And who will have “started it?”
I’m sure the Sons of Liberty scared plenty of white people, too.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 pm
If national registration and licensing passed…
I think you’re missing the point. We’re not near that now! And with Heller, we took another albeit small step away from it. So scaring whitey doesn’t help, it pushes us back closer to it. Instead of scaring whitey, EDUCATE HIM. We can make the undecided our friends through education, or our enemies through fear. Which do you want?
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I’m with Mike. Our backs aren’t quite all the way up against the wall yet. we do have a few inches. But it’s close enough.
In what universe does having the Supreme Court actually rule that the second amendment protects an individual right, while we’re rolling back gun bans in the Chicago area, something I never though I’d see. While we’re almost done with the National Park ban, where all but a few states have shall-issue concealed carry, and we’ve even gotten one to repeal the license requirement entirely, where we’re improving carry laws in more than a few states.
How the hell is that “a few inches” from the wall? Seriously, gun owners need to get over themselves, stop playing victim, and start working this issue politically so we can continue keeping gun control in retreat. If we lose the public support we’ve built up in the past decade, that’s going to be the end of it. You can resist, but without most of the public behind you, you’ll be destroyed.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Sebastian, with all due respect, you’re playing into the hands of the enemies. If national registration and licensing passed, being a patently unjust and unconstitutional malum prohibitum law, it could not bind in conscience. Because it cannot bind in conscience, no one with his moral sense screwed on straight could condemn another who chose not to comply. But what would happen to those who choose not to comply? And who will have “started it?”
I’m not blaming anyone for not complying Oldsmoblogger. We aren’t yet faced with a national registration scheme. It’s not even on the table. What I am decrying is writing to a newspaper, and telling the public you’ll start shooting the bastards. I would also point out that the founding fathers did everything possible to reconcile themselves to the crown even after the shooting had started. Look up “Olive Branch Petition”
I don’t deny there is a role for agitators, but the fact is, we’re not losing the political battle right now, because we’ve gotten a lot more people on board with gun rights in this decade. I don’t want to jeopardize that. There are plenty of gun owners who aren’t going to want to be associated with a movement that’s associated with civil unrest, let alone the majority non-gun owning public.
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
We should not be content that are backs are not flush against the wall yet. As free people, it is our house. The servants are making the rules, have pushed us nearly to the wall, and because they gave a little, we’re to be grateful? There is an entire Federal agency focused on jailing or killing us for not following their arbitrary limits on our freedoms. I get what you’re trying to say, that if we obey we might get a few more inches. but hell, I see nothing wrong with Mike telling our servants that there are only a few inches left before we throw them out.
They kill us over lengths of wood. Why should we beg when they actively attack our fundamental human rights? If 3/8 of an inch of wood is worth killing us for, what does attacking our liberties justify?
July 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
How HTown, so why aren’t you shooting yet? If this government is that unlawful and out of control, the time for revolution is now.
They’ll destroy people for making moonshine too, or importing lobsters in the wrong types of bags. We’re not the only ones who have grievances against the government because they’ve made a difficult and nonsensical regulatory framework, and told people to work in it.
The problem is, the vast majority of this country is willing to live with the regulatory framework. That’s what you have to change. Make people aware of it. Make them see how stupid it is, and maybe they’ll stop voting for the fools who pass these kinds of laws. In a Republican government, that’s pretty much what you’re dealing with up until you decide it’s time for revolution. There is no “awkward period”: there’s politics and there’s war. I think we have an obligation to work within the political sphere until we’ve exhausted every possibility.
Because the fact is, because we’re a Republic, if war starts, you won’t have a lot of people behind you. Without that, the outcome is pretty much determined. It’s a man’s right to choose to fight and die, rather than submit, but fight and die is probably what’s going to happen if you don’t have at least a third of the population behind you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I would also point out that the founding fathers did everything possible to reconcile themselves to the crown even after the shooting had started. Look up “Olive Branch Petition.”
I think seventy years of generally peaceable compliance with their schemes adequately fills that bill. ;-)
I also am not shy about saying those days are over. We have made substantial gains in recent years, but I am here to say that I will not back up a millimeter (Not. One. Millimeter, whether for tactical or any other purpose) from where we stand right now, nor is where we stand right now good enough for me. My long-term objective is the end of NFA and GCA, along with national Vermont-Alaska, concealed or open as the law-abiding citizen prefers. I might not get there, but that’s the direction I’m going. I won’t trade one of those goals to get microstamping on 9mm only. ;-)
There are plenty of gun owners who aren’t going to want to be associated with a movement that’s associated with civil unrest, let alone the majority non-gun owning public.
Well, I have limited use for splitters and Pharisees, so I guess that makes me even with these gun owners, whomever they are. Okay, I recognize that’s painting with a broad brush, and doesn’t apply to everyone who holds the attitude you’ve described above. Fair enough.
Snark aside, though, there’s quite a difference between Mike Vanderboegh and the Aryan Thrust, or whatever the hell they’re calling themselves these days, and failing to draw the distinction doesn’t help, either. A couple of analogous examples come to mind:
Solzhenitsyn raised the question (I can’t find the exact quote though I’ve read it more than once), “What if the officers who went around carting people off to the gulag had to wonder when they left home in the morning whether they’d make it home that night?”
One also hears that during the legal wrangle over the 2000 election in Florida, several Democratic headquarters had rocks thrown through their windows. Rocks bearing the inscription, “We will not tolerate an illegal government.”
Are either of these out of line? I submit to you that Solzhenitsyn and the anonymous rock-throwers, if any, were doing — as Mike Vanderboegh is doing — no more than heeding the words of Patrick Henry: “Guard jealously the public liberty.”
Would you be happier if the response had been worded, “Nuh-uh. We won’t comply, and you can draw your own conclusions as to what will happen next?” In the end, it amounts to the same thing.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
y long-term objective is the end of NFA and GCA, along with national Vermont-Alaska, concealed or open as the law-abiding citizen prefers. I might not get there, but that’s the direction I’m going. I won’t trade one of those goals to get microstamping on 9mm only.
I don’t disagree with your objective in the least. We’re not going to get everything we want because the vast majority of the population disagrees with us. It’s not just a bare majority, it was something like 77% of friggin Alabamans did not agree with legal machine gun ownership.
Now, I’m not giving up on that 77%. We had pretty strong majorities for handgun prohibition at one point too, and managed to turn that around. But it’ll be a long way bringing enough people around to get there. The political process can’t guarantee we will never have to retreat again, or that we’ll ever turn those 77% around to our cause. We might not. But I do think we have to try, because the alternative is bloodshed. And I don’t think that will end well for our side if it comes to that.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
BTW, these have been great comments. It’s good that we can have a discussion about such a passionate topic without it devolving back to third grade.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I dissagree that winning over the voting public is the strategy. You can’t. All democracies vote themselves into oblivion, which is why the Founding Fathers added Constitutional limitations. Those Constitutional limitations are the only thing ensuring our basic liberties and they are actively being subverted. Hell, Thomas Jefferson even recognized that the “Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants..”.
We are in that awkward phase, because the constitutional brakes have fallen off and there is usually only one way to put them back on.
III
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
How long does this awkward phase last? When does the shooting start? I think those are serious questions, because if the wheels are truly coming off the bus, then further political engagement is pointless, and it’s time for to hit the reset button.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I think those are the questions. Further political engagement only slows the decline, but the inevitable is so horrific I still participate. The colonists didn’t wait very long though, and they put up with less than we are.
Do we have 3% yet?
III
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I don’t disagree with Mike’s message but with its phrasing. As much as I and many of us want to scare the sheep and say, “Hey, we’re here. Don’t piss us off!”, it’s counterproductive. That’s a hard thing for me say given I tend to be a bit of a bull in the china shop when it comes to resolving issues. Finesse is a hard thing to learn.
Rather than say, “If you do this, we will shoot you or whatever proxy you send in your place.”, we should rather emphasize resistance by lesser means. Emphasize civil disobedience (such as the rock throwers above), the idea of whole groups of law-abiding citizen not complying with a law they feel is illegal and was passed even in the face of their displeasure expressed to their representatives. 10,000 angry citizens making their case to the public as to why they aren’t complying with the “Firearm Safety and Public Happiness Act of 2011″ and holding up their thousands of letters sent to their rep who ignored them builds a much better case for sympathy and understanding in the broader public spectrum than, “We will kill you if you go one inch further.”.
Even when we mean the latter rather than the former. We don’t like it but that is reality.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I wouldn’t go as far as to say pointless. After all, a letter to the editor is a political action. It’s the Soap Box.
It’s the Ballot Box that has me a mite concerned. McCain, Obama, Barr? That has to be some kind of cosmic joke, right?
Some days I am more optimistic than others, but I don’t deny that right now it feels a little like 1860 must have. If we get back to the point where sticking with the political process would require retreat from where we are now, I would call that a strong hint.
III
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Matt,
I agree with civil disobedience. It’s worked well for the Canadians many of whom have defied their long arm registry. Enough that the government can’t really enforce it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
So, what is your definition of ‘backs against the wall’? The shoulder blades? The vertebrae? How much pressure?
And I keep seeing folks bitterly (heh) clinging (double heh) to the militia argument, despite that being specifically rejected by the Supremes.
Would you rather everyone hold their tongues and just start shooting? What do you think the headlines would be then? “Gun Nut Snaps”? “Officers Killed in Ambush During Confiscation Sweep”?
Flatly stating ‘if you do x, I will respond with y’ is Fair Warning. Keeping quiet is part of the reason that we needed the Heller decision. Had our fathers been organized the way we are, there would have been no GCA ‘68. Had our grandfathers been this organized, there would have been no NFA, or at the very least, Frank Miller’s attorney would have shown up to the SCOTUS hearing.
You and Bitter are forging a new life together, one that will hopefully include little Snowflakes, and that is fine. Actually, more than fine, it’s wonderful. But that also means that you have your own agenda here, which is also fine. It’s perfectly acceptable, at least to me, to be an Armed White Person (to mangle Uncle’s metaphor), but please consider the possibility that if the Mike Vanderboeghs of the world have any sort of impact, your back will never touch the wall.
Lastly, consider that all this has nothing to do with ‘armed revolution’ but more to do with ‘if I cannot have your respect, I will settle for your fear’. Putting on nice clothes and going to court hasn’t worked with private property (Kelo), privacy (FISA), habeas corpus (Patriot Act), ad nauseum.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
McCain, Obama, Barr? That has to be some kind of cosmic joke, right?
I wish it were. There was a comedian who suggested pretty soon we’ll be voting for plants. Sadly, I think I’d prefer a plant. A rhododendron would have some difficulty violating our rights.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Allow me to point out that Mike Vanderboegh wrote an excellent series of essays (six or seven, if memory serves) under the umbrella title, “Rock ‘Em.” They’re available at a number of sites, but searching on the last name and title would probably be best for finding them.
I have said before that I consider Mike Vanderboegh to be our Thomas Paine. I’m not kidding (and he’s a better writer than John Ross, with all due respect to Mr. Ross).
Three…it rhymes with free.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
What Peter said (well) is important to note for casual readers who stuble onto this thread. We are losing all of our freedoms, big ones like privacy and due process. The reset button is about a lot more than guns, a lot more.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Back against the wall means that the second amendment is being relegated into meaningless, not through constitutional amendment, but through extralegal means, and we’re powerless to stop it politically. That does not describe our present situation.
But yes, I am suggesting that people either need to get involved in the political fight, or start shooting. There is no awkward period where you get to do nothing in the political sphere, because it’s all pointless, but you’re waiting for the shooting to start. What is Mike V. doing to defeat anti-gun politicians and help elect pro-gun politicians? What pro-gun politicians has he been donating money to? When was the last time he wrote a letter to the editor that was trying to change hearts and minds rather than saying “don’t do X, or I’ll shoot you?”
If we don’t end up with our backs against a wall it will be because a lot of people worked very hard to avoid that possibility politically. I won’t deny there’s a line that the government can’t cross, and what to do if the line gets crossed. That’s something to be discussed among ourselves. But not something to be discussing in front of the people we need on our side in order to avoid it coming to that.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Peter,
The question isn’t the warning; it’s the punishment. To the letter author’s point: Would an average citizen who knows nothing about gun culture and believes rights emanate from the Government and what they vote themselves, consider the notion of someone shooting people over a gun license and a registration certificate be worthy of a death sentence?
Kill someone over a couple of pieces of paper? Would it be perceived as reasonable? I suspect the answer is “No”. Understand that I deplore registration and licensing and find any such scheme to violate 18 USC 926(a). It’s my personal pet peeve in the gun rights world because it serves no public safety purpose and ultimately is intended as a means of future control. But a normal, average 9-5 American just living day-to-day is not going to see that view of killing over the Government registering your guns to be a reasonable act.
You’d actually gain more support from them, in my view, if it had been phrased “If you come to take my legally owned guns because the Government banned them and I’ve done nothing wrong with them.” to gain more support. People tend to see when the Government is overreaching in its power such an egregious act in the absence of demonstrated, tangible threat by said citizens and would be willing to support such extreme reactions.
That’s why the line is hard to draw. It’s different for everyone. Revolution occurs when enough people agree on where the line is, agree it has been crossed and agree to pledge their lives to push the powers-that-be back across it because they also agree no other recourse will work.
The fear I have is the threshold for the people to act and realize the wheels have come off lies beyond when the Government has already effectively disarmed us physically and mentally by preventing people from even realizing they’ve ceased to be citizens and have instead become willing slaves. Not enough people, not enough weapons and too much apathy.
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Vanderboegh is a crank. Pure and simple. He is always agitating for somebody to “push the reset button.” The more you read of his stuff the more it becomes clear that he is the lunatic fringe. Apparently a democracy that votes against his principles is a government that needs to be overthrown. Some bloggers that I respect give him favorable exposure, but I do not think it benefits our side at all.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I have said before that I consider Mike Vanderboegh to be our Thomas Paine.
Of course, after America settled down after the revolution, Paine became an enthusiastic supporter of the French revolution. We all know how that ended.
As I said, I don’t deny there’s a role for agitators, but I think only a fraction of them manage to find their place in history.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. -W. Churchill
Since the keystone to the Constitution currently hangs by a single vote, I have to conclude that our freedom is in peril. Prior to any revolution, perhaps we might arrange a final political warning? A million armed citizens peacably assembled in the streets of D.C., petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, might convince them that we are as serious about liberty as were the Founders.
The People are the sovreign in this Republic, and free men do not ask permission to exercise their Rights. Now is the time when we can win without bloodshed. I pray it goes no further, but I will be on the front lines if the enemies of our Constitution attempt to outlaw our Right to keep and bear arms. If the 2nd Amendment falls, there is no Constitution. If the Heller decision had gone the other way, we would be building towards a civil war right now.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
They are knocking us off, one at a time. That’s the slope slowly getting steeper. It will take awhile but the government right now has the time and the wherewithall to get it done. They should know what is coming and Mike has told them in no uncertain terms. Cudos for PETER @ 3:39, THAT WAS A GOOD POST. all of these seem well thought out.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Since the keystone to the Constitution currently hangs by a single vote, I have to conclude that our freedom is in peril. Prior to any revolution, perhaps we might arrange a final political warning? A million armed citizens peacably assembled in the streets of D.C., petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, might convince them that we are as serious about liberty as were the Founders.
Or it’ll be taken by Congress as a threat of violence against the government and they will have the political cover they need to disarm us all, because Mr. and Mrs. Middle America will think “Damn, that shit is scary.”
The people that are sovereign, the vast majority of them don’t think they live under a repressive government and aren’t even close to thinking about overthrowing it. Those are the people we need to win this. Scaring them, by having them link gun rights to civil unrest, isn’t going to work. It’s one thing to suggest that an armed society helps keep the government under control. I think most people can grok that. It’s another thing to suggest the time is fast approaching for revolution.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
At the range last week, among other shooters and friends, the subject of the Heller decision came up. One man stated that he was relieved by the decision because he would have hated to lose his firearms. What I had to say was right along the lines of Mr. Vanderboegh. My reply seemed to surprise him, but I am very clear on it. There is a clear bright line, the same line the Massachusetts colonists stood on when they met the British at Concord. I am sure that lots of other colonists felt they were acting rashly, “behaving like lunatics” as it were.
So, if saying that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a final check on government power is “fucking up”, just put me with Mike and the rest of the fuckups. Each of us has different limits.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Based on what Sebastian and Bitter had posted, I thought the letter that Mike Vanderboegh wrote was a lot more incendiary than it was. Thanks, Sebastian for posting the actual link. Actually I think the letter is a salutary wake up to those idiots that think that registrataion and licensing is responsible sensible gun regulation.
There is no Federal call for nationwide registration and licensing. To be truthful why do the BATF need it? They can always call the FFL holders to get information and the FFL holders will give it.
I do not know how many of you are really familiar with FFL regulations. The 4473 is held in perpetuity to the FFL and when he dies, retires etc., the records are given to the BATF. The FFL also has a bound book which is a record of transactions. To give an example, the year we had a sniper hunting people in the metropalitan Washington area. his deadly accuracy and randomness scared a lot of people. There was no way my carrying a gun could have save me in that circumsatnce and people wanted the sniper caught fast.
BATF simply called all the FFL holders and asked, politely,if we had sold any rifles with those characteristics. Guess what, the FFL holders agreed that it was their civic duty to provide this information. Now in hindsight that effort was in naught. They had the wrong car and the guns was bought in another part of the country.
That is why many people prefer to have guns without any paper. In other words guns bought, traded between private individuals. Guns that are transferred between generations.
The best way to stop registration schemes is to fight in the legislature when they are proposed and if they are imposed to passively resist. Refuse to register, much like the residents of DC are doing now, due to the onerous burdern of registration.
We will know if the police will start going door to door to insure registration . The 4th amendment will be used to deny access. People will bury and hide their weapons. NO need to start a revolt now when we are turning back decades of laws that are against guns
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
tjbbpgob:
The government is not a living and breathing entity. It’s often a useful metaphorically to look upon it that way, but the reality is the people elect the government, and the government is made up of people who are, either directly or indirectly, elected by voters. There is no master plan for disarmament. When the population supports gun rights, the politicians will tend to. When the population supports or at least acquiesces to gun control, the politicians do.
There is no entity called “government” which can be frightened into submission. You have to persuade people, and work to get politicians who agree with you elected. That’s the only way you can affect change in a representative government.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Of course, after America settled down after the revolution, Paine became an enthusiastic supporter of the French revolution. We all know how that ended.
So did Jefferson, I think. Nobody’s perfect.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Matt,
I don’t disagree with you. But I do disagree with the ‘couple of pieces of paper’ part: they’re the result, not the cause, and it is far better to prevent the ‘papers’ than to try to repeal them.
And no, I have no earthly idea where the line is. That’s why I noted that Sebastian might have a different position, and that it’s perfectly fine for him to do so. I’m older and childless, so my options are different than his. As well, I live deep within the hurricane zone, and having the Gummint showing up to put my firearms in some sort of protective custody is, after Katrina, a real and troubling possibility.
It may well be just boastful posturing, but if the average LEO thinks that he might not go home to his family because of this sort of thing, then it might be worth it. If the notion/idea of personal extinction is established, there may be no need to actually pull the trigger, which would be just fine with me. Again, I just don’t know. Remember that there were a number of acts of defiance before Lexington and Concord, and establishing some sort of line before any general ‘revolution’ would be far better, and seeing as how us gunnies cannot agree on what that might be only underscores the problem. One thing that I believe is vitally important is to let everyone know that it’s not just isolated ‘gun nuts’ here or there, but that the so-called fringes of the 2A population (Mike’s 3%) vastly outnumber the police/FBI/BATFE/National Guard, etc., which is one reason I’m willing to give the Mike Vanderboeghs of the world more space to run their mouths. Yes, there will be people who are turned off by that, but if the mere threat stops them, then I’d say that was a good day’s work.
This is all propaganda, in the final analysis, just the same way as the other side uses the ‘it’s for the children’ and all the other straw men they cite. A little push back on that front isn’t the PR disaster that some might think.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Licensing and registration don’t matter, as long as you can trust the government. Unfortunately, most governments that do this (D.C., Chicago, etc.) can’t be trusted.
So, our only choice is to fight for precedence that will prevent any arbitrary restrictions, seizures, or bans. If that happens, licensing and registration would never matter.
P.S. The Civil War was not justified by any metric. It was a preemptive move by the Confederacy to protect slavery in their lands. They were basically traitors to the Republic.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
I can’t say I agree with that, Alcibiades. You can never trust any government to that degree. Remember, we only have five of nine justices who think the Second Amendment means anything. After eight years of Obama, we’ll be lucky if the worst that happens is that number is unchanged. It could, very well, be worse, and we could see the precedent overturned.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Sebastian said: “There is no entity called “government” which can be frightened into submission. You have to persuade people, and work to get politicians who agree with you elected. That’s the only way you can affect change in a representative government.”
Of course, you are right about that. In a pure Democracy, that would be the only way, but we are a Republic, a nation of law that protects the minority, or the one, from tyranny of the majority. If everyone in the nation besides me believed that guns should be outlawed, my Rights would still be protected by the 2nd Amendment.
As Peter pointed out, the average LEO will probably not be enthusiastic about going door to door to confiscate arms if gunfights break out every 10th house. They want to raise their families and grow old, like we do. Politicians are just ordinary people, too. If they realize that their physical existence is in peril because of the violations of their constituent’s Constitutionally protected Rights, they are probably going to change their behavior to better ensure their personal, if not political, survival.
Look, I know this is all speculation and hypothetical. I hope the situation never arises when U.S. citizens have to wrest their freedoms back from a tyrannical government, but if it is not widely known that there are those of us who stand ready, that makes it more likely that we will have to fight to preserve our liberty.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
[...] from: Sebastian, [...]
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Peter, that’s a good point about Mike’s clear warning serving as an offset to the “for the children” propaganda, and as a preventative measure.
I’m not sure where my line is. I think I’ll start listing the grievances online, Declaration of Independence-style, and wait until it’s an intolerable list. If my list and I dissapear, maybe that’ll serve as the canary-in-the-coalmine….
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:37 pm
“How the hell is that “a few inches” from the wall? Seriously, gun owners need to get over themselves, stop playing victim, and start working this issue politically so we can continue keeping gun control in retreat.”
I’ll agree on working on the issue politically, but I won’t feel we’re more than a few inches from the wall unless there is no chance of an AW ban passing in the future.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
It’s not that the 97% are actively against the 3%. In fact, the vast majority of them don’t even think about you at all. They’re too busy watching reality tv, or playing xbox360, or taking in the latest Batman movie, or watching Oprah, or blah blah blah to think about the erosion of our consitutional republic.
Threats to start shooting won’t inspire them to start thinking. It’ll inspire them to freak the hell out. You’re talking about disturbing the comforts of their day-to-day existence. They won’t join you. They’ll cheer as you’re put down. You start shooting, you become a threat to them. And the idea of liberty will die at the hands of a mob.
Sebastian’s right. Education and knowledge are the key, not force or submission. After all, John Adams said, “Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.”
Our government doesn’t use fear as it’s main motivating factor. It uses the promise of ease, the giving up of responsibility in exchange for the giving up of rights. It’s a Faustian bargain that most people are willing to make to one extent or another. It’s not tyranny, it’s sloth.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Vanderboegh has become one my biggest philosophical influences. I think it’s much wiser, more honorable, and just plain better that folks like Vanderboegh provide the other side with a bit of warning before the shootings and bombings start.
“Don’t Tread on Me” isn’t original, but it’s still a message that needs to be gotten out.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
anon,
You misinterpret the 3%: it’s the percentage of the Colonial population that actually took up arms against the British. About a third of the total population were Loyalist, or tended in that direction, the majority just wanted to be left alone. I’m sure they would have been playing with their Xboxes if they had them.
And apathy is the greatest problem, followed by politicians and wannabe politicians promising stuff.
And after they ‘freak out’ about gunfire, they’ll settle down because the Oprah rerun is on at 10. A more apparent danger is that if the political class is sent packing, who will replace them? I’ll bet it’ll be largely from the folks over at HuffPo, DailyKos, and Crooks & Liars, since we revere all of the BoR, none of us will be willing to shut them up, lest the same thing happen to us. That, I believe is the greater danger, that the cure will end up being worse than the disease.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:27 pm
The problem is, I don’t think you would even have 3% of the population willing to take up arms against the current government unless things take a serious turn for the worse. 3% of the population is nine million people. If you can’t even get 5 million people to join the NRA in defense of their gun rights, which is a far less serious commitment than making war against your own government, you’re not getting 9 million. You’re probably not even getting a million.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Pardon me, Sebastion, but when is the last time you read the title to your own blog? It carries the same message as Vanderboegh’s letter. Not that I disagree with where you are coming from either but very little of the change in public perception is due to the efforts of pro gun organizations or gun owners. It is primarily due to several high profile events either involving abuses by our government against citizens or outright attack from without (as I’m sure everyone here is aware).
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:13 pm
My title says nothing about starting a civil war. But that said, I do agree that 9/11 and Katrina are the main drivers of the change in public opinion, but I think we’ve capitalized on it pretty effectively. I hope public opinion stays with us, and I don’t want to do anything to capitalize on that.
Everyone in this thread should do one exercise. Go find someone who is not a gun owner. Someone who is your average run of the mill, middle of the road suburban Democrat or Republican, and start talking to them about how if they make you register your guns, you’ll shoot the bastards who come to do it dead. See how they react to that, and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Go find someone who is not a gun owner. Someone who is your average run of the mill, middle of the road suburban Democrat or Republican, and start talking to them about how if they make you register your guns, you’ll shoot the bastards who come to do it dead.
What if I say I’ll just try to wing ‘em ;-)?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
My title says nothing about starting a civil war.
Sebastian, if you give Vanderboegh a fair and thorough reading, he’s not talking about starting one either. He’s talking about finishing it. To lump him in with the people (and yeah, they’re probably out there) who actually want one is a calumny, though I don’t reckon he really needs me to defend him.
I don’t want one either. I have young children. I don’t currently own a rifle of military utility, and I am no rifleman…but life is not so dear, nor peace so sweet, etc.
Everyone in this thread should do one exercise. Go find someone who is not a gun owner. Someone who is your average run of the mill, middle of the road suburban Democrat or Republican, and start talking to them about how if they make you register your guns, you’ll shoot the bastards who come to do it dead.
With respect, Sebastian, this is codswallop. Mike didn’t go grab some random guy offen the street and offer to start a civil war. Someone else expressed a wish for universal licensing and registration, and Mike told him what would happen if he got his wish.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
PS: three is free. :-)
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
What if I say I’ll just try to wing ‘em ;-)?
Hahaha… I haven’t tried that one before. But seriously. I told one of my coworkers one time, who has no issues with guns for the most part, that I thought machine guns should be legal and I got a look like I was from another planet. I have no idea why people, even a lot of gun owners, get so upset by that idea, but they do. I think unfamiliarity is the key. Hell, if I’m in a mall shooting, I’d prefer to go up against a shooter with a submachine gun or an assault rifle. That guy is going to empty his mag out in a few seconds, likely not hitting much, and give me an opportunity to return fire. I’d be much more scared of a nutball taking carefully aimed shots.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Well I can still run my trap as much as I like without being thrown in to a gulag, and I have an arsenal hanging on my wall. Maybe I’m wrong and the country has reached some critical mass I don’t recognize, but we have actually had some small amount of politcal success recently, working in the system. The sunset of the AWB, expanded concealed carry laws through most of the country, the protection of lawful commerce in arms act, and the Heller case.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ll be the first to tell anyone that our country was founded by radical revolutionaries. Transplant many of their statements to the present time and apply them to our current government, and anyone issuing those statements would be labeled an extremist nut job.
This quote sums up that fact nicely.
“You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.” -Charles Austin Beard
The wise dead white guys that wrote the Bill of Rights fully intended for us to have the means to resist some future tyranny from our own government with deadly force if necessary.
Interesting discussion. I don’t have a magic eight ball to say where the line is, and how we should properly convey the fact to anti gun people that the revolutionary nature of the second amendment is still intact, no matter how far out that scenario might be.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Oldsmoblogger:
Fair enough. I’ve actually read a lot of Mike’s writings, and while I don’t agree with everything he says, I understand his appeal. I should have perhaps suggested that even if he does not want revolution, introducing a threat of violence into the political process erodes political support to get closer to the result we want, so it makes violence more likely over the long run. I won’t say there will never be a time to make those threats, but that time isn’t now.
But I was suggesting the exercise so folks could see what the reaction is. Granted, I’ve had a few people who were willing to have a serious discussion about it. But surprisingly, I find people on the hard left far more willing to discuss an armed society keeping government in check than people who are not at one extreme of a political pole. Most Americans fit the bill of not being at that extreme. It’s true that you don’t need to convince all of them, or even most of them. But you need more than you have now.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Vanderboegh on his purposes in writing ‘Absolved’:
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/07/vanderboegh-internet-introduction-to.html
A discussion from Kevin, expanded into a post:
http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-is-to-be-done-question-and-answer.html
Excerpt:
…we have reached the point in this country, I believe, where the electoral power of the following societal segments:
- government workers at the local, state, and Federal level;
- “private industry” workers whose jobs are dependent on continually-expanding government spending;
- government dependents totally reliant upon the State for housing, sustenance, and other basics;
- millions of illegal aliens transmuted into “undocumented voters” to further the statists’ schemes; and
- individuals whose so-called “thinking” is so befogged by the combination of government school indoctrination and mainstream media propaganda that the concepts of freedom and private property are almost literally unthinkable
is so great as to render the existing political processes moot for anyone who believes in individual freedom and limited government.
We simply do not have the votes.
The indispensable James Bovard has more on that theme at http://jimbovard.com/blog/2008/06/30/the-capsizing-of-american-democracy/.
Kevin has noted here and elsewhere that “the courts will not save us.”
In its listing of the exceptions to the Second Amendment’s “…shall not be infringed” language, Scalia and the Heller majority have once again proven him right.
I submit that if one is dispassionate in one’s analysis of today’s political scene, the inescapable conclusion is that a voting booth is also not going to save traditional American freedom and its servants.
And the big question remains - what do the “holy electoral process” advocates plan to do when the slavering Majority of government minions has voted to:
- seize your guns and ammunition;
- confiscate the majority of your income;
- limit your access to your retirement savings;
- tax your real estate into foreclosure;
- further transform your children’s education into multi-culti State worship;
- restrict your ability to criticize and denounce the Government upon pain of imprisonment;
- abolish your ability to praise the God of your understanding as “hate speech”;
- monitor your communications with like-minded folks as “a matter of homeland security”; or
- any combination thereof?
What’s the plan then, amigos?
Folks, there has been a war being waged in this country since at least 1933 with its objective the complete subjugation of the formerly-free American people.
Believing it ain’t so due to ignorance or denial doesn’t change that fact.
The Heller majority told Congress and state legislatures exactly how to draft legislation such as
- the expanded AWB II,
- anti-ammo storage laws, and
- NFA 34’s replacement banning all civilian-possessed automatic weapons
so as to pass “Constitutional muster”.
I wonder what the excuses will be after the next Congress gets revved up under President Obamessiah.
Or will reasonable gun owners simply be placing anonymous calls to the Feds under the guise of “policing our own”?
Good luck all.
We’re gonna need it.
PS: Read this essay and give it a good think:
http://www.federalobserver.com/print.php?aid=1874
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
[...] Sebastian linked to this opinion piece by Mark Venderboegh wherein he says: There are some of us “cold dead hands” types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. [...]
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
My title says nothing about starting a civil war.
I respectfully disagree. While it is not overt it is implied. And how is it different than his point? Re:
We’re done being pushed back from our natural rights without a fight.
Are they not the same?
In any case, it does not matter what law they make, the rights embodied in the BOR cannot be rescinded even by Constitutional amendment.
On another note, it might be best to point out that “machine guns” are not illegal to own when discussing the subject with the uninformed and use the opportunity to educate them even more. I would also tend to think that were the question in the poll worded honestly you would not get 77% against ownership of machine guns. Pollsters (and statisticians) can make the data say anything they want.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:24 pm
And I would posit that if it’s really that bad, the time to start shooting is now.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Depends on what kind of fight you’re talking about. I wouldn’t say I would never agree that it’s time to start resisting the government with force, but now is not the time. Now is also not the time to even suggest it.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
The public resistance to selective fire and full auto weaponry is in my estimation a perfect illustrtion of the slippery slope in action. In ‘34 the powers that be passed a heavy tax on them, placing such a financial barrier on their ownership that they passed out of anything resembling common use among law abiding citizens, without actually banning anything. A calculated end run around constitutional questions.
Five decades later, another law banning the new manufacture of those weapons is easily passed, because no public memory of their use in law abiding citizens hands exist, outside of a tiny minority that know the people that own the now finite number of these weapons.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Well, what will it take? For you.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
However, it might be time to watch the first disc in the “John Adams” series. There might still be time to engage in discussions about liberty (much less threatening for the neighbors you know), and another trip to the range wouldn’t be wasted. IMHO 5-4 told us how close we are to that wall. November will too.
And may I just say, what a joy it is to read 72 comments of well written and respectful opinion and debate. Hear, hear, gentlemen! You’ve done well.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Depends on the situation. If Pennsylvania starts banning guns, I move. If the feds do it, if someone organizes a reasonable plan to resist it, I’ll join. But that plan would have to make actually shooting people a last and final resort. There are a lot of things that can happen up until shooting starts. Like I said before, the Canadians have done pretty well with civil disobedience in defiance of the long gun registry.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Stepping outside the topic for a moment, I’ll have to second the John Adams recommendation. That show was done extremely well in my opinion. Giamatti did an outstanding job.
As for what would be the breaking point for a sufficiently critical number of people? Perhaps something in the same ballpark as this Orwellian gun grabbing fantasy.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/OPINION04/704250310/-1/OPINION