Lines, and Lies, in the Sand,
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:
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:
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,
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.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
"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.
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.
Sebastian sounds like many Jews in the Ghetto who wouldn't support resistance because they could still "talk" to their captors....
Maybe he oughta talk to Zelman...
I was wondering when you were gonna show up, Mike!
And yes, I did say that I was done with this endless argument, but I had one of those 'moth drawn to the candle flame' moments.
Sorry. Going back to loading .303 now...
A growing trend I have noticed is that people, who seem to consider themselves pragmatic, have made attempts like this to reason with their fellow pragmatists on the merits of the 3% credible deterrent approach. That is an encouraging sign.
I find it ironic that those who agree that the government of these United States might systematically violate, and eventually abrogate, one of the individual rights recognized by the Bill of Rights apparently believe that the USG will stop at that.
They evidently believe that when the government has erased the right to bear arms that they'll continue to respect and recognize the rest of those rights recognized by the Bill of Rights. I find such naivete' to be astonishing.
If the government destroys the right to bear arms, they will have destroyed the concepts of individual rights and individual sovereignty. These concepts are the basis of the philosophy of the enlightenment, and the foundation of Western civilization and our technological society. Which is why the more educated totalitarians among our enemies are pushing this issue so hard.
We do, indeed, fight for the future of civilized humanity.
Aim small, miss small.....
Although most of us 'wackjobs' care not a gnat's arse about being called names, we do still laugh at the assertions of such cretins that - duh!!! - why, we never THOUGHT of trying political activism, garsh and golly. Jes' as soons as I kin git mah foot unstuck from this here trash can, I'm gonna look into this here thang they call 'votin' " and git mahself active!". Where in the name of all that is holy, have these imbeciles had their heads for the last 20 years or so, while we have been writing, calling, meeting, boycotting, faxing, lobbying, buttonholing candidates and generally trying to bring some level of sanity into our allegedly 'representative' government? Can people be as truly stupid as this fellow's comments would imply?
My old Welsh nanny once said, "never waste your time trying to reason with people who have no brains, nor with people who have worms." Maybe we got a double yolk here.
Or maybe the guy is just angling for an appointment to the new 'pretend president's cabinet.
My reply in general to the politicals (from Ahab's place):
Check Your Assumptions
Dock should review the tapes and real eyewitness accounts of Waco and Ruby Ridge more carefully.
These horrifying things are what happens when the backs of good men are turned and fail to see the fast moving clouds of evil racing across a turbulent sky.
QUOTE"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."QUOTE
Wow, if you assume us 3 Percenters to be just a bunch of pugnacious conspiracy-theorists, then thats truly wrong. Like Mike said, we are all politically active, perhaps more than many others. I, myself actually spent 2 consecutive nights WITHOUT SLEEP working on pro-freedom and pro-2A posters to be put up around NYC subways and bus stops in the week before the elections. Yep, with only dark chocolate, and bright lights to keep me from falling asleep.
If there is truly a "broken fence" in the shooting sports community, it is probably those young shooters and mall ninjas out there who spend all of their time arguing with other shooters because "their" sport is more manly and such and such. Such as the skeet shooters who think AR-15s should be banned, or the rifle hunter who thinks semiautos and revolvers should be banned. These folks are really weakening our community. They must wake up now and stand alongside us instead of bickering to and fro. Any gun owner who supports ANY anti-gun measure is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
To paraphrase Mike V., We have our enemies' assurances that they will negate any possibility of our using the standard methods of politics against them. That's why being pragmatic is a waste of precious time. It ain't gonna matter, millions of words,letters,faxes,e-mails,protests,demonstrations, all of it. The end result is going to be that these Marxist bastards are going for the marxist gusto, and that means disarmament and subjugation. And not being ready means all you're going to have to face those clowns, is good intentions, a record of good citizenship, and a funny look on your face when they kick the door in and hose you and your family down with an MP-5. Oh, they'll NEVER do THAT. What, sweet Jesus, is going to stop them? Their sterling record as strict constitutionalists, their regard for the law and decency? Sigourney Weaver is a poor example, but she said in the movie, Aliens, " If just one of these things gets down here, then this, this, bullshit, that you think is so important, you can just kiss all this goodbye". And the US govt., with it's power, it's systems, it's lawless marxist bureaucrats, who have run amok for years, never held accountable, never restrained, never downsized, is alien to us, and has no remorse nor pity, is going to be headed by a marxist gun-grabbing punk from Chicago, who has never held a paying job, never put on a uniform, and never expressed anything but utter contempt for people like us. Good luck with being accepting, workable, and pragmatic. He'll eat you first. What it will take for the prags is when enough of them watch enough of their brethren tossed into the chipper-shredder, then they'll get it, but all they'll have left is the ability to jockey for a better place in line. I'm sick to death of this running crap. III.
Part of the problem is that we're in the lull before the storm. The emptiness of the claims of the prags about `the political process' aren't yet unambiguously evident to Americans.
(Forget `gun control' for a moment and look at how the unelected bureaucracy of the European Union holds plebiscites repeatedly until they've engineered the results they want, for the most egregious current example.)
One thing that does seem clear is that prags don't have a line in the sand. They've bought into post-modern relativism and it's worked as designed - it has neutralised their political arguments. Their arguments are now based on politics rather than their politics being based on their arguments. Practical, rather than pragmatic people, understand that results are what counts.
The prags will never admit they're wrong but we can, I'm sure, be confident that are a lot of people who aren't so carried away with their own cleverness.
Matthew 16:3 (KJV)
In the final analysis, if it happens it must be true. We shall see.
"Their arguments are now based on politics rather than their politics being based on their arguments."
Great observation Johnny,and so true.
Good comments all; both here and on Say Uncle's.
I wonder if before the revolution the loyalists questioned the sanity of opposing with deadly force the seizure of one powder magazine in Massachusetts.
Was Lexington and Concord the site of reasoned discourse and compromise?
Give em' Hell Mike!
Post a Comment