Maybe. Maybe not if you put the government’s overreach into perspective for them. There are things people will draw a line over. There are numerous cases in history and when you push the right buttons….

Of course it was a lot better in those times. All I’m saying is that there was no time in our history where there wasn’t some kind of restriction on who could carry, own or wield firearms.

I’m not really even sure what we are arguing about. What I am saying is simple as pie. I just believe that people, average people are going to react in a harsh manner to rhetoric that implies a threat of violence. That’s it. You don’t have to take my word for it. Drive into a city and talk to people. We may disdain these people, but they vote and have political power. Their reaction won’t be to be scared and then respectful of your rights, their reaction will be to call for the police and military to implement shock & awe.

As far as the other stuff, I agree with you. I think we should be more aggressive in pushing for our rights. I think the time for compromise has passed.

What do you think a punishment for breaking the law is? Isn’t THAT a threat? It’s also (or used to be) known as a deterrent.

Sebastian DID draw a line, scroll up and read it. He stated that destruction of .gov property if they decide to call in the rest of 4473s most likely leading to his forfeiture of rights was something he would do. Boycotts are threats as well. Police threaten every day and yet you’re not really doing much about that.

Yeah, sadly that brady playbook is the same one the prags are using against the 3%ers here.

“I’ll be honest, I don’t expect a lot of that lost ground to get made up. I would be surprised to even see the 1986 ban lifted, let alone the National Firearms Act restrictions. I think commercial regulation of firearms sales is probably here to stay too. But that’s not because getting rid of those things is impossible, but because a lot of gun owners don’t take issue with them. That’s what you have to change.”

How the hell can you win if you have no expectations to win!? That’s an apathetic self-defeating voice speaking, and one that espouses his position as the only one worthy of following. Yeah, a whole lot of gun owners seem to have a problem defending others rights if theirs aren’t in the cross hairs. Zumbo, Cooper spring to mind as two examples. Look how fast they were apparently schooled. Gee, MAYBE if gun owners could see that little bit of the puzzle and come together to fight ALL the bullstuff instead of just their little niche of the market we might actually GET somewhere.

Look, openly stating that you have no expectation to win does nothing. If you’re not going to fight to regain ground then how the hell can we accept your position as pragmatic, and stand with you or folks who will compromise away more of the right? Every compromise bring us closer to the end of the road.

That kind of thing is as crazy as the talk about going to arrest Obama unless he releases his birth certificate over at WoG.

“Funny, you used to be able to buy a gun mailorder with no begging to see if you were allowed. Even machine guns. Nope, NO history there.”

I’m saying that some sort of gun control has existed since the founding of this nation. There has never been some magic time when we had no restrictions whatsoever on the Right to Bear Arms. I would love to live in a society like that(no restricitions), but it isn’t going to happen. It is a dream. We have to live and work in the real world.

“Reading comprehension isn’t your thing. People who break the law and intend to injure, kill, or ruin the 3% are WARNED that doing so will bring retaliation. ”

This isn’t a threat? It will be perceivied as such. Look at it this way. If 99% of the people think the law is one way, and 1% think it is the opposite, it doen’t matter whether you are right in every matter. You will still get run over. I just think we need to do our damndest to convince people that out cause is right before we go down in flames.

I read and understand what you people write perfectly well. I know exactly what you mean to write. It doesn’t matter. The vast majority of people are going to interpret what you are saying as a threat and respond accordingly. That’s just the way it is.

If you 3 percenters can’t even convince Sebastian, Uncle or myself of the rightness of your posiiton, how the hell are you going to convince others who are somewhat dubious of firearms rights?

“Perhaps in your twisted panties you secretly wish they’d just shoot because YOU would. ”

I’m not even sure what you mean here. Are you implying I secretly want to shoot you because I have what amounts to a minor disagreement with your tactics. Excuse me, but that is right out of the Brady Bunch’s playbook.

We lost those battles in 1968 and 1936 respectively. You could argue that gun owners didn’t fight hard enough against those laws being enacted then, that the NRA wasn’t effective enough, and I would agree with all those things.

I’ll be honest, I don’t expect a lot of that lost ground to get made up. I would be surprised to even see the 1986 ban lifted, let alone the National Firearms Act restrictions. I think commercial regulation of firearms sales is probably here to stay too. But that’s not because getting rid of those things is impossible, but because a lot of gun owners don’t take issue with them. That’s what you have to change.

Funny, you used to be able to buy a gun mailorder with no begging to see if you were allowed. Even machine guns. Nope, NO history there.

“The vast VAST majority of the people of this country disagree with you. But, instead of trying to change their minds YOU THREATEN THEM. ”

Reading comprehension isn’t your thing. People who break the law and intend to injure, kill, or ruin the 3% are WARNED that doing so will bring retaliation. Perhaps in your twisted panties you secretly wish they’d just shoot because YOU would.

From a concealed carry and legal standpoint they’re in their house and have given a warning to the intruder to retreat because they have the right to defend themselves.

I call Bullshit. Name one leader or member of the NRA who has ever said or advocated for anything of this sort.

Go ahead and resign your NRA Life membership if you want. All that does is make sure that the organization goes further away from the direction that you want it to.

You three percenters are living in a fantasy world. You don’t seem to respect any progress in the direction of more firearms freedoms until you get exactly what you want, condtions that have NEVER existed in the history of this country.

The vast VAST majority of the people of this country disagree with you. But, instead of trying to change their minds YOU THREATEN THEM.

Wow, great strategy.

I would imagine if they called them in en-masse, you’d have a lot of cases where “Ooops… I forgot to secure the premises when I left last evening. And wouldn’t you know it? Someone done came in and stole all my 4473s! Damned hoodlums!”

The guy my dad bought all of his through and I bought a few from is now out of biz for those “willful violations” like checks and X’s. A guy who ran the shop longer then I’ve been alive.

Anyone know for sure if those forms are considered government property? Of what value? What’s the penalty for destroying them? If having the wrong kind of flower is a felony anyone think for a second that isn’t one as well?

You say you agree that would be an appropriate action. You have just drawn a line that may or may not be a felony.

Congratulations on finally seeing the point of 3%.

People who share the Founding Fathers’ belief in unalienable individual liberties (rather than mere privileges subject to government restriction/revocation) and armed resistance to tyranny are “wackjobs”? Thanks for explaining that. You must be really upset at those pesky felons who committed treason, sedition, and armed rebellion against their “lawful” government and created the USA. You would have made a swell Tory.

“In that instance I would recommend civil disobedience. They can’t arrest us all. It’s worked pretty well for the Canadians with their long gun registry. If they come confiscating handguns, which should be something you can get a preliminary injunction to stop under Heller.” – Sebastian

The CA DOJ estimated at least 350,000 California gun owners refused to register their semiauto “assault rifles” when that state’s AWB was enacted, thereby becoming instant felons barred from owning any firearm per GCA-68 and its fans in the NRA. Widespread “civil disobedience” has accomplished what in California the past twenty years?

As far as Heller, at least a dozen courts so far have upheld existing anti-gun statutes citing Scalia’s contemptible words in Heller which (while using the term “individual right”) clearly assert the RKBA is a mere privilege confined to only certain persons who are “allowed” to possess only firearms which the government approves. So much for individual rights being “unalienable” (per the Declaration of Independence) and the RKBA “shall not be infringed” (per the Second Amendment). But then this is the same Scalia & Company who resurrected the medieval concept of deodands (inanimate objects possessing evil intent) to uphold asset forfeiture laws.

“Join the NRA. If you are already a member, upgrade your membership.” – Yosemite Sam

Oh, please. Speaking before the National Press Club on 16May95 (televised on C-SPAN2), Tanya Metaksa (then head of NRA-ILA) declared the NRA “fully supports the Gun Control Act of 1968.” On 18May95, on Larry’s King CNN show, NRA Exec VP Wayne LaPierre said not only did the NRA not want to abolish the BATF, it “didn’t want to restrict the BATF in any way.” My wife and I promptly resigned our NRA Life Memberships.

Every NRA-endorsed senator, including NRA Director Larry “widestance” Craig (R-ID), voted for the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment to expand GCA-68’s “prohibited persons” to cover people convicted of certain misdemeanors; a law which cost thousands of LEOs and military personnel their career. It was the NRA which lobbied to get the Brady Act’s background checks to apply to all firearm purchases rather than just handguns as Sarah Brady sought.

The NRA gives A ratings to politicians who endorse Obama and voted for the Brady Act and Lautenberg Amendment while giving genuinely pro-RKBA Ron Paul (R-TX) a B rating. NRA spokesweasels being interviewed on TV brag how the NRA strongly supports all existing federal anti-gun statutes, specifically citing NFA-34 and GCA-68.

If you believe the RKBA is really just a government-bestowed privilege subject to permits/bars to possession/and types of firearms “allowed,” regard gun possession as a mere hobby, and enjoy being lied to by Wayne LaPierre and his ilk who quack about the Second Amendment while continually betraying gun owners then the pusillanimous NRA is definitely for you.

Both factions have tried the ballot box. And the jury box. The difference is that only one seems to be WILLING (not anxious) to resort to the cartridge box in the FUTURE, should the line be redrawn behind them.

If they called in all the 4473s, I would agree this would be appropriate action.

“And to continue to beat a dead horse. Join the NRA.”

He’s right. The NRA is a dead horse, and joining it expecting to ride anywhere would require beating it.

Let me set that aside a moment, and address Sebastian’s points directly: As far as Harrisburg goes, it may be that the apparent disconnect between the downstream consequences of not going to Harrisburg (even for an annual event, the dates of which I assume are known fair in advance) and “oh, jeez, I need to take a day off and go to Harrisburg a week from Thursday” is sufficient to be demotivating.

This ties into the other issue with the MGOM: Let’s face it, a non-trivial percentage of the people who went to the Million Man March and Million Mom March (a) didn’t have to pay their way there, and (b) didn’t have a heck of a lot better to do, or at least nothing that couldn’t wait. It’s a factor.

So if I were going to set up an MGOM, I’d take whatever amount of advance planning went into the other two examples, and increase it by 50 to 100 percent. Same thing more or less applies at the state level.

Getting to the original topic, I’ve sent a number of letters, faxes, and e-mails to my federal “representatives” (this is me rolling my eyes), and to Columbus, where they may actually have helped a little (the Republicans lost their majority this go-round, though, so I think the Alaska-Vermont carry bill is a non-starter, and we’ll be watching for incipient rollbacks). I’m an NRA member (and they seem to be cowboying up this year, at least a little).

I’ll keep doing it, too, but I also think that “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires” informing those involved that compliance with further malum prohibitum laws that fly in the face of the natural law (and what is supposed to be the supreme law of the land) should not be taken as a given.

Lines, and Lies, in the Sand, or, A Sensible Request Rejected

A fellow named Dock had a sensible request over at Snowflake’s house, which you can find at http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/12/04/the-line-in-the-sand/#comment-34695.

It went like this:

Dock Said,
December 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

“Instead of fracturing our community, is there any way that we can instead try to mend fences with the 3 percenters? I know, I know, they’re (insert bad thing here) and they are intractable and everything else. Fine. Someone has to wear the big boy pants and be smart enough to realize that we can no longer afford internal warfare of any kind. The modern political reality has robbed us of this luxury. Sebastian, I admire your cool head and your ability to see the big picture – it’s a large part of why I started my own new blog. Will *you* be the one to try to mend fences? Just a thought.”

To which a prag named Chris replied:

chris Said,
December 4th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

“Dock, that would be kinda like getting Islam to tame the terrorist groups among them… not impossible, but it would be easier to loudly let everyone know that these wackjobs do not represent the rest of the shooting community.”

Now wasn’t that a nice slap, comparing us with Jihadists? But, Dock, ever hopeful, replied thusly,

Dock Said,
December 4th, 2008 at 6:46 pm

“Easier, sure. But is it better? I’m not so sure. It is a worthy task. Perhaps it is wrong of me to call anyone to that duty, because it really is a tough one.”

Tough indeed, for Sebastian promptly shot it down.

Sebastian Said,
December 4th, 2008 at 10:09 pm

Dock said: “Instead of fracturing our community, is there any way that we can instead try to mend fences with the 3 percenters?”

Sebastian replied : “I don’t honestly see any way to do that when they think we’re cowards who just want to surrender, and we have different ideas about effective tactics that makes us believe they are a liability to the movement. I mean, I doubt they really even see guys like me as on their side, and I don’t really seem them as on mine. So I’m not sure there’s a fence to be mended to be honest.”

Dock, I appreciate your trying. I believe it was Sebastian who started this current folderol by calling me a “lunatic” after the Madison letter. I had a similar dustup with Chris Knox, responding to names that he called, and we ended up making a fragile peace, along the lines of understanding that if he was to play the good cop advocating our Second Amendment rights, it might be useful to have a bad cop around to play off of.

Martin Luther King and the other advocates of non-violent change were unable to interest the federal government in enforcing their own laws until the Birmingham Riots of 1963, and the formation of the Deacons for Defense and Justice by black veterans who not only had weapons but knew how to use them, raised the very real prospect of armed conflict.

For his part, Sebastion has finally answered the $64,000 question, at least in part. Sez he:

“The demand to know what we’d do if the line is drawn behind us is rather like someone asking a chess player what he’d do to avoid being check mated if his opponent checks his king. They will be the first, no doubt, to say it’s a cowardly cop out. But it’s how I feel about it. There are circumstances where I would agree violent resistance is the only choice. But we are not now, in this country, anywhere close to those circumstances. I find the rather delighted glee with which with some boast of forcing circumstances on others to be utterly repulsive. If believing that makes me a coward, so be it, but I won’t stand with a group that preaches and prepares for civil war while numerous non-violent options lay unused on the table. If they pass a new assault weapons ban? We’ll fight it in the courts. If they ban private sales? There’s legislative, judicial action, and civil disobedience at our disposal. Confiscation? Heller should take that off the table, and even if not, there’s fifth amendment challenges that can be made. Registration? We already have it with every 4473 you fill out.”

A court fight takes how long to reach the Supreme Court? And how many Obamanoids will appointed by then? Sebastian must know, and accept, that we will have to forfeit the banned weapons long before it comes to final judgment. And what are we to do then when the decision is against us? It is a fait accompli. Funny how he just gives them registration at the end. I’ll tell you this, if they start picking up all the 4473s the Three Percenters will be in a race with them to see how many we can destroy before they get to them. We’ll burn them in huge bonfires and dare the feds to do anything about it.

What will it take for the Sebastians, and the Ahabs, the SayUncles and the Linoge’s to understand? This is not the country you grew up in. The old verities no longer apply. The tried and true political maneuvers are going to have to be rethought, and refought — like the Sons of Liberty, not the Kiwanis Club.

When Sebastian moans this:

“If 3% of gun owners were as involved in political activism as they supposedly are at preparing for civil war, we’d be an unstoppable political force. There would be no need to argue about where the line is, because it would be political suicide for any politician to get anywhere near it.”

Not only is he wrongly assuming that all of us Three Percenters have not been fully engaged politically for lo, these many years, he is wishing for a land that has disappeared.

Look around you, people. Wake up and smell the kindling burning for the ghastly pyres of a future Waco. For it is coming, unless we convince the gun confiscationists that this is as far as they go without violence. Thus, it would behoove the so-called “pragmatists” of the gun world to use us as Martin Luther King did Stokely Carmichael. Instead of calling us belittling names and trying to discredit us, you should be saying, “Look, Senator, these people have a point and they’re angrier than we are. We wouldn’t go that far, BUT THEY WILL, and you’d better have the good sense God gave a goose and back off the seizure of control over the private sale of arms. And for your own sake, don’t try to ban another previously legal class of weapons. These people will fight, and they’ve already said that after your first shots at them they’ll take the fight to YOU. Not just the ATF and the FBI, but to YOU. Senator, I beg you, is it worth it?”

The gun confiscationists are not going to stop without a reason. We have backed up too fast, too easily, for 70 plus years. We Three Percenters will now provide them with a reason. It is up you pragmatists to convince them of it. Thus, it is in the pragmatists’ interest to acknowledge our position, not to denigrate it or to call us names. Sebastian has said that he, too, has his own “line in the sand.” If he and his fellow pragmatists do not take this opportunity we have given them, that “line in the sand” is just a lie in the sand.

I am willing to work with anybody to prevent this country from descending into civil war. I am willing to do anything short of compromising my principles, and those of the Founders’ Republic, to do so.

Dock, you made a convincing plea. I’m sorry it didn’t work. Maybe when things get worse they will change their minds. For things WILL get worse. In the meantime, the Three Percent will continue to prepare for the test to come.

We disagree on this, but at least this is having the right conversation.

“loudly let everyone know that these wackjobs do not represent the rest of the shooting community.”

because I’ll claim a “line in the sand” (at least somewhere, at some point, depending on circumstances) isn’t a way to get me to respect and work and play well with the others in this fractous group of gun-owers.

Personally, I think anyone who doesn’t have a line in the sand somewhere in their head isn’t a serious gun-owner. That doesn’t mean that everyone needs to run around spouting threats of violence, either the non-whackjobs or the 3 %’s.

But, I do think we should take a page from Obama’s playbook. Get in their face. Open carry (where legal), conspicuosly! Find other ways to push the issue as a civil rights issue. And letters to the editor, like Mike V’s, have a place in that rhetoric.

The non-wackjobs will be better served if they embrace a little of the 3 %’s attitude than telling us we’re “whackjobs”. After all, even if there were no “wackjobs”, real or imagined, the anti-gunners will still tar all of you non-whackjobs as bloodthirsty neanderthals, or maybe wackjobs!

I personally think, rather than travelling to Washington, we should plan and carry out either State or City peaceful demonstrations. More folks would participate because it wouldn’t require the costs (financial and otherwise) of travelling to DC. If MILLIONS of people turned out in their own home towns simultaneously on a Saturday morning across the country, I think it would get just as much attention and be just as effective.

I agree that all peaceful means must be used and exhausted prior to armed rebellion. However, my line in the sand is when they start going door to door confiscating weapons or pass a “law” requiring us to turn in ANY KIND of firearm or weapons.

Of course that’s what will happen. Martin Luther King spent time in jail in order to get civil rights for black people and if it comes to it, we may have to do the same. And if we are peacefully protesting, the arrest of some protesters will backfire like it always does. But as I said, we aren’t at this point yet and there are multiple avenues to advance our cause that don’t rise to the level of civil disobedience.

If we as gun owners couldn’t get AT LEAST 100,000 people to march on Washington after say the passage of a full registration requirement we may as well hang up our spurs now. There wouldn’t be enough of us to make a difference.