search
top

The Line in the Sand

There’s an awful lot of lines being drawn in an awful lot of sand in various places on the Internet.  Linoge states:

Furthermore, I intentionally have not defined specifically where my personal “line in the sand” is, nor will I ever do so on this weblog or in a public format – that choice is mine, no one is in any position to question or belittle it, and attempts to do so will be responded to accordingly. Finally, I remain a proud (and, dare I say it, vocal) firearm owner and carrier, and an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment as well as the entirety of the United States Constitution.

To which one commenter of his replies:

Coward. Lying coward. You are obviously so unable to face reality and so angry at yourself because of that fact. Therefore, this is what you post. I feel sorry for you. You won’t define it because a permanent line doesn’t exist. And I think you’re ashamed of yourself because of it.

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.

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.  But political activism is thankless work, and sometimes you lose.  It doesn’t have nearly the emotional appeal of being told that you’re holding the line while all the other rubes retreat.  It’s not as satisfying as believing you’re brave while others are cowardly.  But I am not in this for satisfaction, I am in this to win, and I can’t think of any faster way of losing than drawing a line, and daring people to cross it.

48 Responses to “The Line in the Sand”

  1. Mike w. says:

    “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.”

    Yup. I believe violent resistance is something to be used when all other avenues have failed.

    Just look at how the founders approached King George. They exhausted their options and resorted to violent revolution when it was the only card left in the deck. It was also fundamentally different because they were being ruled over by folks an ocean away, not by those whom their fellow citizens voted into power.

    As far as my “line in the sand” I have some idea where it is, but I doubt most of us actually have a set line. It’s one of those things that fluid and dependent upon circumstances. Most importantly, it no one else’s damn business where my particular point might be, and if they’re going to be an ass about it like the guy you quoted then I’m sure as hell not going to tell them.

  2. Dock says:

    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.

  3. chris says:

    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.

  4. Dock says:

    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.

  5. Tom says:

    When they go collecting guns (large scale, not just one city) what then? If they just collect handguns it’ll be OK with you?

    What if they declare that a yearly tax of $5K per gun is due.

    Are you going to go beg the courts to take the case while praying you have standing? Maybe they shut you down because your guns weren’t taken yet.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/03/terrorism-nuclear-biological-obama-white-house

    What do you think they’d do after THAT? Look at what 9/11 got us. Or maybe it’s a nationwide “India” attack here using guns.

    I’ve been saying gun owners should pull some of the stunts like the illegals did or the gays are planning to do on the 10th (day without a gay) and then MAYBE we’d have a little cred. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. gun folks are far too busy with their own issues to come out in those numbers.

    Unless you can magically come up with some way to do it there are only lines in the sand.

  6. Matt says:

    Liberals do not like dead people in the news paper. But I think it is time for a revolution.

  7. chris says:

    Matt,

    its dumb shit like that that makes the entire gun world look like McVeigh…

    one simple dumbass statement can undo weeks or months of strengthening our position in the public eye.

  8. Linoge says:

    Additionally, Sebastian, I consider showing your hand before the game to be an absolutely idiotic move – surprise has and always will be one of the best tactical advantages out there, and I see absolutely no good reason to squander it. If other schmucks want to take the fool’s course and assuage their egos by beating their chests and screaming their plans to the four winds… well, more power to them. Stupidity was never outlawed, so far as I know.

    As for your last paragraph, I think I will just say aolv(“Me too!!11!11!!”); and leave it at that.

  9. Sebastian says:

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

    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.

  10. Sebastian says:

    Tom,

    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. What I’d do beyond that I’m not going to say.

  11. Skullz says:

    Sebastian,

    If you (we?) wait until it’s time for revolution it will be to late to train, or prepare. There are too many written historical examples that prove this point over and over.

    What makes you think that 3%ers are not active in the political process? I spent time and money over the last campaign season support pro 2A candidates – ones that aren’t in my district, one not even in my state! I write plenty of letters to my representatives and have even made appointments with one in particular and had an appointment face to face with him. As a matter of fact I had a rather heated exchange with Morganelli over his support for an end run around lost & stolen that I published on PAFOA and distributed to my neighbors.

    At the same time, do I think it intelligent to prepare for the possibility of some sort of civil unrest because our government violates the constitution – or worse, just disregards it? Absolutely! Do I believe that there is no way I can survive alone? Yes. Do I broadcast that the line has been drawn for me- NO MORE! Yes, I do. Do I want our elected officials to fear us? Yes. If that makes me intractable, or somehow says I’m forcing circumstances, so be it.

    People talk of civil disobedience, but it’s too late for that. Other causes that utilize civil disobedience to promote their views might be arrested for a misdemeanor, but a gun owner? Can you imagine what would happen if we decided to use our “right” somewhere it’s currently illegal to practice? Instant felon and prison time.

    You know, it does frost me a bit to see you post that the us vs them is really there and that you believe in it. You’re basically saying that you’d rather find common ground with an anti than with a group that at its core wants to see you right protected at whatever cost.

    III

  12. Dod says:

    Unless you’re talking about the Reagan Revolution I don’t think it’s going to be a very helpful discussion.

  13. Tom says:

    “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. What I’d do beyond that I’m not going to say.”

    I’m not sure which case would call for civil disobedience.

    They can’t arrest us all? Maybe not, but martial law IS an option.

    Do you have standing? Would the court actually do it? If they’ve decided that they can take one type of gun you think they’d really give a damn what any court said? I think you’ve got too much faith in a system that has largely stopped working how it was supposed to decades ago.

  14. Jym says:

    “I’ve been saying gun owners should pull some of the stunts like the illegals did or the gays are planning to do on the 10th (day without a gay) and then MAYBE we’d have a little cred. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. gun folks are far too busy with their own issues to come out in those numbers.”

    That is a dumb idea. I mean, come on. How many people who were anti-illegal immigration had their minds changed by that day? How many people who are anti-gay marriage are going to have their minds changed by the 10th? Let’s try an experiment… everyone here that was convinced by a bunch of people boycotting the entire US economy for a day that they were wrong about that issue, raise your hands!

    *crickets*

    It doesn’t make any sense… By trying to ruin the economy for a day and mess up the lives of all those small businesses out there, you’re expecting them to start sympathizing with you? Why don’t you block the streets in a protest and keep everyone from getting to work on time while you’re at it? Frustrating and annoying people is not a valid tactic to win people to your side.

    It’s just an emotionally masturbatory display where you stand around preaching to the choir to feel good about yourselves with no net positive gain for your movement. It’s stupid when the left end of the political spectrum does it, and it doesn’t magically get less stupid if the right were to try it.

  15. Keith Bailey says:

    These are perilous times, yes, but I believe that this is all saber rattling from all sides involved. Do we need to prepare for a fight to defend our Constitutional rights? Absolutely. Do we have to exhaust every avenue avaible to us before we even consider violence? Absolutely. Imagine the news if the pro 2A people took to the streets and marched in their mall ninja tactical gear and tricked out AR’s and SKS’s. It would be a PR disaster. We should behave like civilized human beings and use the system that our foefathers left for us.

  16. Yosemite Sam says:

    Gack, I read threads like these and I have to say that I am not at all sanguine about the future for gun rights.

    “People talk of civil disobedience, but it’s too late for that. Other causes that utilize civil disobedience to promote their views might be arrested for a misdemeanor, but a gun owner? Can you imagine what would happen if we decided to use our “right” somewhere it’s currently illegal to practice? Instant felon and prison time.”

    How can you even say this. Civil Disobedience hasn’t even been tried yet. I can think of dozens of ways that firearms owners can make their point in a peaceful manner. For example, how about a million gun owner march on DC. Everyone can wear empty holsters and I’ll tell you that if Congress sees 1 million people on the mall, peacefully protesting for the right to bear arms, they’ll take notice and the media and the Brady bunch will have a hard time saying that gun rights activists are a spent political force in this country.

    How can anyone even talk about lines in the sand when none of this has even BEEN TRIED. But we spend all of our time fighting and snapping at each other, myself included. We need to unite and get politically active. Because if we don’t, we’ll get runover like a Mac truck.

  17. Skullz says:

    Yosemite Sam,

    “For example, how about a million gun owner march on DC. Everyone can wear empty holsters and I’ll tell you that if Congress sees 1 million people on the mall, peacefully protesting for the right to bear arms, they’ll take notice and the media and the Brady bunch will have a hard time saying that gun rights activists are a spent political force in this country.”

    You must be confused. about what civil disobedience is, either that or you believe that right of the people to peaceably assemble is already against the law.

    Definitions for civil disobedience include the following;

    *Deliberate, open, and peaceful violation of particular laws, decrees, regulations, military or police orders, or other governmental directives. …

    *The decision to break specific laws because they are unjust. This tactic of nonviolence was used by the civil rights and farmworker movements to bring about social change.

    *The active refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands (which are pointless or detrimental) of an established authority, without resorting to physical violence

    So, tell me again; how do we gun owners go about breaking specific, unjust laws that are forced upon us without committing a felony?

    “Because if we don’t, we’ll get runover like a Mac truck.”

    Maybe you will, but I won’t

    III

  18. PolyKahr says:

    What Yosemite Sam said!

    Seriously, I think having an empty holster march in DC would be fabulous, even if it scares some white people. If Sam would agree to publicize it, having a larger following than myself, I would do all I can to help. Sebastian can get my e-mail address if you want to contact me.

    I think it’s important that we do what we can to reach out to the 80% of people who believe like us that we have an individual right to arms, but get queasy when it comes to how that works in practice.

    I also think it would be instructive for more people to realize how politics works though I know that Mike V knows, I am often surprised by folks who seem to think we can have it all the first time out.

    Oh, by the way, after the march we should adjourne to the Capitol Brewpub for planning our follow on “strategery.”

    Regards,
    PolyKahr

  19. Yosemite Sam says:

    I should have separated those two thoughts. I said that civil disobedience hasn’t been tried yet and the second thought was that there are many, legal peaceful things that haven’t been tried yet before we even get to the level of civil disobedience.

    I genuinely don’t understand where you are coming from. Are you saying that the system is irretrievably broken and that the only resort is revolution, even though the things I mentioned haven’t even been tried?

    You mention that people could be arrested and charged with felonies. Maybe if it is one or two people, a lot more difficult if it is 100,000 or a million.

    As far as getting run over by a Mac truck, yes you will if the vast majority of the American people are against you. That may be our future, but I think we should try the alternatives I’ve outlined first before we reach a point that it all goes up in a blaze of glory.

  20. Yosemite Sam says:

    Hell, let me add that the buy-cott of the last month has been a great demonstration of our political power and you can bet that the folks in Washington are quite aware of it.

    And to continue to beat a dead horse. Join the NRA. If you are already a member, upgrade your membership. Donate to the ILA. One may not agree with all of the NRA’s tactics or may feel that the NRA is too accommodating with our enemies, but the NRA is the only gun rights organization the gun banners fear and respect. They do not want its membership to increase.

  21. Skullz says:

    I appreciate what you meant by separating the two thoughts, but my questions still stands. In what way can a 2A activist break the law and NOT end up with a felony? Hell, some of us (Fincher, Olofson, Weaver) intentionally tried NOT to break the law and still end up in prison.

    Lets say (in some alternate reality) we actually convince 100,000 people to commit civil disobedience by marching in DC keeping and bearing arms. Are they going to arrest and charge 100,000 people? No, of course not – but maybe 10. Are you willing to be 1 of the 10, so the other 99,990 people can make a point?

    What I’m saying is that while all of us should continue to utilize the systems in place to repel additional unjust laws, repeal existing unjust laws, work with our political representation, and engage our local communities, we should also be prepared to act if those actions fail. We should not be afraid to “scare the white people”. We as a 2A community should be broadcasting that we are willing to work within the bounds of the law TO A POINT. We should also be allying ourselves with other civil rights causes, because – at least to me – all of the bill of rights is sacred, not just 2A.

    Finally, I don’t think the system is irretrievably broken – yet. But there is a distinct possibility that one additional law restricting my creator endowed rights would make the system irretrievably broken.

    III

  22. Skullz says:

    ETA – …and still end up in prison or dead….

  23. Sebastian says:

    “Because if we don’t, we’ll get runover like a Mac truck.”

    Maybe you will, but I won’t

    So if you shoot at the feds, this will not result in either death or capture?

  24. Skullz says:

    Out of all the things I wrote, and the questions I posed, that’s the only thing you can respond to?

    You call 3%ers short sighted and write them off as possible allies, calling out that all “they” want to talk about is armed conflict but it’s the only thing you want to talk about. Project much?

    On to your point: I should probably take it back, as none of us are going to get run over by a Mack truck in terms of legislation – the government is intentionally boiling frogs. In terms of any kind of armed conflict, I don’t actually want to find out, but it wouldn’t be over in a matter of seconds – like a Mack truck.

  25. Yosemite Sam says:

    “Lets say (in some alternate reality) we actually convince 100,000 people to commit civil disobedience by marching in DC keeping and bearing arms. Are they going to arrest and charge 100,000 people? No, of course not – but maybe 10. Are you willing to be 1 of the 10, so the other 99,990 people can make a point?”

    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.

  26. Paladin says:

    There’s an estimated 80 MILLION gun owners in the U.S. and some of you guys think we’d have a problem amassing only 100,000. If that’s the case, we should all just go down to the police station and turn in our guns today!

    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.

  27. Sebastian says:

    Actually, one reason our side doesn’t do protests is the extreme difficulty in getting people to turn out. When the PA gun rights people do their yearly rally in Harrisburg, we get, at most, a few hundred people. Enough to fill the capitol rotunda, but nothing really intimidating to the politicians. If it’s this hard to get gun owners to take a day off work and spend a tank of gas and a box lunch, why do you think you’ll get them to surrender their entire existence and their very lives shooting it out with the .gov?

  28. David Codrea says:

    Everyone I know among the “Three Percenters” has been doing what they can to push the “numerous non-violent options” for many years, and continue to do so.

  29. scott says:

    Chris, calling me a name –

    “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!

  30. Sebastian says:

    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.

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

  31. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2008/12/lines-and-lies-in-sand-or-sensible.html

    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.

  32. The Million Gunowner March has been discussed off and on in the community since at least 2004, probably longer. One of the things that comes up early in the conversation is the fairly high likelihood that the march would be infiltrated by provocateurs who would do their level best to turn it into another Bonus March — only worserer, and live on CNN into the bargain.

    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.

  33. I would like to agree with Yosemite Sam:

    “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.

  34. Sebastian says:

    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.

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

  35. Thing is, they won’t do that with fanfare. That’s why we all of us need to keep in touch with our FFL1s.

  36. nick says:

    Sebastian, I wish you’d dispense with the tired argument that the 3% don’t act politically. You’ve no basis for such an assertion, and you have substantial testimonial evidence to the contrary. The III crowd is and has been at least as politically active (per capita) as the “prags”, so why don’t you give it a rest? I had hoped our brief back-and-forth over the last few days would’ve have put a stop to it.

    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.

  37. emdfl says:

    Sebastian et al –
    When the batfe gets all the dealers on board with the computerized version of the 4473, it won’t have to go running around trying to pick up the paper copies. The information will be right there in that (illegally)created data base. Just like all the other information in all the other (illegal) .gov data bases.

  38. Sebastian says:

    The E-4473 applications aren’t databases. They are data entry programs which basically spit out a perfectly filled out paper 4473, which you then sign, and is kept by the dealer the same as any other 4473.

  39. Skytrooper says:

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

    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.

  40. Tom says:

    Uh, how many dealers have been put out of biz during Clinton and Bush? Where’s all that paperwork?

    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%.

  41. Sebastian says:

    No doubt ATF already has a lot of 4473s sitting around. A dealer I’ve used just went out of business, due to a divorce rather than any ATF shenanigans, so the .gov will have the 4473s for all those guns.

    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!”

  42. Yosemite Sam says:

    “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…”

    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.

  43. Tom says:

    “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.”

    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.

  44. Sebastian says:

    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.

    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.

  45. Yosemite Sam says:

    “….until you get exactly what you want, condtions that have NEVER existed in the history of this country.”

    “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.

  46. Tom says:

    Can you show me the laws you’re referring to about gun control? Are you going to pull up some barring the concealed carry of pistols? Maybe something about dueling? Those are night and day from what we have now. Lets see some of them, really. I’d like to see where they say “no new guns after ___ date in “civilian” hands” or “no muskets with the following X number of features”

    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.

  47. Yosemite Sam says:

    “Can you show me the laws you’re referring to about gun control? Are you going to pull up some barring the concealed carry of pistols? Maybe something about dueling? Those are night and day from what we have now.”

    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.

  48. Tom says:

    “I just believe that people, average people are going to react in a harsh manner to rhetoric that implies a threat of violence.”

    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….

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. A Three Percenter – Call me Ahab - [...] not have heard the term used before.  Rather, I’m a Three Percenter in the sense given by Sebastian in…
  2. SayUncle » Can there be peace between our people? - [...] active instead of engaging in mental masturbation all over their keyboards. Or, as Sebastian said: If 3% of gun…
  3. Quote of the Day - Unstopable Edition « Firearms & Freedom - [...] Quote of the Day - Unstopable Edition If 3% of gun owners were as involved in political activism as…
top