Thursday, April 21, 2011

RT Television: "Armed and ready: American’s ‘Three Percenters’"

Russia Today does the Three Percent. They wanted to interview me via Skype but I don't have one of those nifty cameras.

For Virginian Travis Fox, militia is a state of mind—and gun control is a carte-blanche. The government is meant to be kept in check with arms. Fox is part of the Three Percenters.

Fox never leaves home without a loaded gun—carried openly on his belt.

“If it is between someone else and my family, someone else is going to die,” Fox said.

“The definition of tyranny is that which is lawful for government but unlawful for citizens. They have jet fighter planes, they have machine guns, they have howitzers, they have tanks, they have nuclear aircraft carriers,” he said. “The militia today, we are left with semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles.”

Three Percenters—a militia with its own flag, plenty of guns and a manifesto that proclaims it only takes three percent of gun owners to overthrow the government. They gathered last April 19, 2010 on the banks of the Potomac River in Virginia with a warning to those in power: “attempt to further oppress us at your peril.”

“People innocent and guilty alike were going to start dying for their own stupidity,” Mike Vanderboegh, a prominent militia advocate and the founder of the Three Percenters told the crowd.

David Codrea, who blogs “notes from the resistance” on said the rallies were meant to send a message to the US government.

“Americans are beginning to feel increasingly less like free citizens and more like subjects,” he explained.

More and more of America’s 84 million gun owners say they’re tired of compromising on their right to bear arms, Codrea said. Vanderboegh, Codrea and other Three Percenters refuse to follow any new gun control laws.

“We all have a line in the sand and at some point we would all resist,” Codrea said.

The president of the National Rifle Association (NRA), Wayne LaPierre, recently moved closer to the Three Percenters when he refused President Barack Obama’s invitation to even discuss new gun law.

“Why should I or the NRA go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” LaPierre wrote.

Former President Bill Clinton was the last Democratic President to propose gun control legislation with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which by his own estimates cost 20 members of his party their seats in Congress in the 1996 election.

Jim Stachowiak from Freedom Fighter Radio said the government is cracking down on “God-given” fundamental rights – gun ownership.

He argued the government is forcing the people to pay for their rights to guns, and restricting access to a right granted both by God and the US Constitution.

“They are translating rights into privileges,” he argued. “Rights are becoming privileges.”

The government is now operating as if it is giving Americans the privilege to carry guns, he explained. But, it is a right, he argued. The right to carry guns is preserved in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. By levying fees and fines or enforcing licenses, the government is restricting American rights.


Anonymous said...

She said, "Tackling gun control...". As if it were a "problem" that needs addressed, but for those pesky American people.

I'm reminded of the movie from years back where the football player was about to be tackled, and he pulled out a gun and shot, point blank, his would-be tackler.



Go ahead.


Brock Townsend said...

Travis done did a good job!

J. Croft said...

I am thankful we have a media outlet via the Russians, but anyone think there are reasons beyond internal leverage inside their main strategic rival that the Russians are patronizing the III's?

Could be weakening us for a UN invasion as some wilder conspiracies presuppose but I wager that the Russians are quietly desperate to find any leverage and any allies given they're between 1.5 billion China and the NWO West in a world sized shit sandwich.

Dedicated_Dad said...

All-in-all, not bad -- certainly better than we could have expected from US lap-dog media...

Still, one wishes that we could -- just once -- get out a quote that didn't make us sound like we were just itching to kill someone...

IE: “...If it is between someone else and my family, someone else is going to die...”

While I understand the sentiment, and would likely say the same thing in my living room, I'd hope that if someone had a news-camera in my face I'd say something more like “...If it is between someone else and my family, I'd do whatever I had to do to stop the threat...“

It's semantics, but it's IMPORTANT semantics!

While I agree Travis "Done good", I hope and pray DOUBLY that he never has to use his sidearm in self-defense, as the choir-boy's-momma's-ambulance-chaser's going to giggle like a schoolgirl over that quote.

"THERE'S a man just LOOKING for someone to kill!! and now my client's poor baby is dead at the hands of this bloodthirsty murderer..."

PLEASE know that I'm not bashing Travis -- just trying to make the point of how what we say can come back to haunt us.

"I'll kill 'im"
"I'll do whatever I have to do to make him stop attacking my family" may END UP being the same thing, but the former makes it sound like that's what I was planning to do all along, while the latter makes it necessary...

Food for thought...

Anonymous said...

"He argued the government is forcing the people to pay for their rights to guns, and restricting access to a right granted both by God and the US Constitution."

No! No! No!

I am not familiar with the Russian Federation's constitution. But I am familiar with ours. I am also familiar with US v Cruikshank. There are no rights "granted" anywhere in our constitution or in any of its amendments. The Bill of Rights merely mentions some of the creator given rights, mentioned in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, that are inherent in being a human and FORBIDS the government from messing with them.

Newsflash for those in The Russian federation. The rights Jefferson mentioned apply to you as well.

Anonymous said...

This was more balanced than anything our own stations could come up with. Not perfect, but better.

Christian Patriot III said...

I know it's "good" to have some coverage that isn't foaming barking mad like most of what we usually get, but this is still pretty slanted. It's subtle, but you can see that it was cherry picked to make the three percent look exactly like the MSM likes to here... it was simply devoid of some SPLC nonsensical counterpoints. They chose all the quotes to mention killing and resistance... see that? I know for a fact Mike said a lot more than "people are going to die".

It could have been written much more intelligently and covered, as Anonymous said, from a God given rights perspective... but that notion would play extremely poorly in Russia given their latent state atheism.

Anyway- point being - know who your friends are and don't confuse slightly less hostile sounds as being those made by friendlies.

Anonymous said...

Gotta give it the Russians: They tackled the issue without pulling in the Southern Poverty Law Center for liberal spin.

Would any U.S. main stream media be bold enough to do that?

Unknown said...

Thanks to both Dedicated_Dad and Christian Patriot III.

Let us get smarter not angrier. Cool heads are necessary for steady hands.


Mark Roote said...

All in all, not too bad. It was slanted, but what else can you really expect from the media (any media)? It was much better than most interviews I've seen.
My biggest gripes with the whole thing are: (unfortunately) I have to agree with DDad about the semantics being important and second, Jim shouldn't have grabbed his pistol and waved it around like he did (twice). I know we are all passionate about these issues, but waving his weapon around like he did makes him (and us by extension) look unstable. I think the first time could be overlooked as he was using it to prove a point and show that he does in fact have one on him (although a little less "flourish" would have been better IMO). I think the second time was totally unwarranted and in IMO will do more to harm peoples opinion of "the guy with a gun", whomever that "guy" may be.
As I said, all in all, not too bad... and who knows, depending on how long they actually talked and what prep time he had, if any, for the questions, I might have done the exact same thing.

Sandman369 said...

Not a bad piece. Sad that RT covers what our media won't.
Still, RT has its own agenda and long standing ties to the GRU.
Use them but never trust them.

TPaine said...

Why do some keep getting the "rights" issue so wrong? As stated in another post, the Constitution gives us NO rights, nor does our government. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as an insistence - some of the Founders wanted to make sure that our most important rights were put in writing so as not to be "forgotten." Our rights come from our Creator, which is why so many progressives are adamant that God does not exist. If there is no Creator, then the Constitution and Bill of Rights are just so much paper.

Those God-given rights were established long before there was a Constitution, and our government really has no power to tell us those rights are dependent upon them. And Mike put it pretty direct when he said that if they try to take away our guns, we will kill them. Not much guesswork to that statement, is there?

Anonymous said...

The cheer (and fist raise) at 1:37 will look "Nazi-esque" to Russians/Europeans and most Leftists.