I had pretty much made up my mind to step away from the rancorous, and apparently endless, debate between the "pragmatists," on the one hand, and the "3 percenters," on the other. It's an argument that will pretty clearly never be "won" by anyone, except perhaps the citizen disarmament advocates. After catching up on my reading of the Sispsey Street Irregulars, however ("catching up" being necessary after my month-long break from involvement with the gun rights issue), and seeing the intensity of vitriol* some of the more outraged "prags" have seen fit to direct at Mr. Vanderboegh and his "merry band," I feel compelled to once again wade into the fray.
In the interest of full disclosure, my sympathies are very strongly and unabashedly with the "3 percenters," although to count myself actually among them would be to give myself vastly too much credit, considering my physical inability to usefully participate in any militia endeavor. Still, if Mike and the rest don't object to me referring to myself as an "honorary 3 percenter," I'll gratefully do so.
As far as the "prags" go, I don't consider them cowards, or collaborators, or many of the other insults that "3 percenters" have tossed their way. I do consider them vastly overly optimistic about the prospects of gun rights prevailing through solely "within the system" activism. They remind me a bit of Neville Chamberlain, with the Heller decision being their Munich Agreement (and by the way--don't give me Godwin's Law--that ain't what this is about).
And this brings me to the source of my confusion. The "pragmatic" strategy, apparently, requires gun rights activists to count on the Constitution for protection against people who have made it absolutely clear that they consider the Constitution to be so much Charmin substitute. At least one "prag," for example, has railed against some other gun rights advocates, for their refusal to vote for one of the chief architects of one of the most brazen attacks on the First Amendment in recent history.
I have frequently criticized proponents of restrictive gun laws for their bizarre "strategy" of attempting to use laws to rein in the behavior of the lawless. I can't really see much of a difference between that, and counting on the Constitution to protect freedom from those bent on subverting it.
* Some examples (just a couple, of many):
"Three Percenters" are self-righteous, anarchist, egotistical, self-centered, solipsistic, incorrigible asses, and are appropriately full of shit.and;
I love this “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” nonsense from the .3-percenters. Fine: I’m against you. Not in principle, actually, but just in the childish, moronic way that you draw attention to yourselves. Typical, from people who’ve never actually had to fight a war against an oppressive state.
Pathetic bunch of losers.
Stumble it!
18 comments:
The whole thing is sophomoric and childish and plenty of school-yard insults have been tossed in both directions.
The worst thing is that I firmly believe that both sides are saying the same things, just in different enough ways (and with enough juvenile vitriol) that they end up talking past each other.
I'm so disheartened about all the chest thumping and name calling that's been strewn about the internet lately that I've pretty much just withdrawn from the fray. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Petty squabbling and infantile behavior like this is absolutely going to be the death of our movement.
We all agree on what the end goal should be. If we can't find some way to agree to disagree civilly and cooperatively on the details of how to get there...we're done.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
I am a 3%er myself but I also know there will be a time for saying no more. Until that time we must use all means to fight the anti's with law and courts first.
Honorary 3%er? Hell, your a comm. officer! Were a results based org..And your on the line. Thanx bro. mthead
The discourse has become very childish. In summary the pragmatists want to effect change via legal and political solutions and go about doing so with moderate success.
The 3% on the other hand dismiss this as cowardice, and want to effect change by shooting somebody (or threatening to shoot somebody), don't really seem to do much of anything.
The "vitrol" certainly runs both ways and finding counter examples to the bits you have quoted is pretty easy to do.
The "can't we all just get along" stuff is misplaced because both sides really don't want the other in the tent. The 3% don't think the "prags" possess the ideological purity to stand shoulder to shoulder with their unwavering patriotism. The pragmatists don't want to be associated with a bunch of camo-clad wannabes that openly argue for civil war and terrorism.
This may be simplistic, but I think of 3pers and prags this way:
Samuel Adams: 3per
John Adams: prag
I guess I am a 3%er.
DC v Heller was for me cold comfort at best.
We got a ruling that said a right enumerated in BLACK LETTER LAW is our right.
So what?!
Should I be happy if we get a ruling that I have the right to free speech?
NO.
We are SUPPOSED to already have that--IT IS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED IN BLACK AND WHITE, not like the right to abortion, which is somehow included in a "penumbra" not mentioned anywhere in the constitution.
Did we "win" in DC v Heller?
Kind of.
But we can only consider ourselves to have won in the same sense that the Jews would have won if a nationwide textbook company were to grudgingly agree to include an unflattering chapter on WWII that tells what the Nazis did to them (instead of denying or omitting the atrocity).
I will consider us--the 2AM 3%ers--to have won when we can, in every state, including DC, both KEEP and BEAR arms with no permit required.
Until then, our "right" exists mainly on paper, as far as our government is concerned.
And for those of us in Los Angeles County, CA, where CCW is about as rare as "The Pinta Island tortoise," our right to BEAR arms does not exist.
http://www.greenexpander.com/2007/10/01/the-10-rarest-animals-in-the-world/
You feel me?
We can "KEEP" arms, as long as they are not the kind whose "keeping" is infringed by CA state, county, or municipal law.
So, no victory dance here over DC v Heller or any other tiny little "victory" that we are supposed to grovel and feel grateful for.
I hope that all of the 2AM supporters exercise their 1AM rights so vigorously that we are never forced to fall back on exercising our 2AM rights due to the fact that "the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
(2 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *144., quoted from http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d12000.htm)
The problem has boiled down to this: Are there enough people who have such deep and broad HINDSIGHT--historical and political perspective--that they have a consequently deep and broad FORESIGHT and MOTIVATION, foresight and motivation which drive them to exercise and defend the Second Amendment in such manner that the persons in government never come to regard the right to bear arms as something that has become moribund?
There are a lot of good points here, but I'll respond to MostlyGenius, since he would seem to be what might be labeled "the opposition" (to my position).
In summary the pragmatists want to effect change via legal and political solutions and go about doing so with moderate success.
If you say so, but perhaps I'll be forgiven for reserving judgment on this "moderate success" until after the next couple years.
The 3% on the other hand dismiss this as cowardice . . .
I would like to see my 3% brethren (flattering myself again, Anon's kindness notwithstanding) back off from that.
The "can't we all just get along" stuff is misplaced because both sides really don't want the other in the tent.
Even if we can't work together, I think it might at least be possible to resist the urge to attack each other for "ideological impurity" on one side, or "being excessively scary to 'white people,'" on the other.
The pragmatists don't want to be associated with a bunch of camo-clad wannabes that openly argue for civil war and terrorism.
I wouldn't want to stand with such folks either, but since I don't think that accurately characterizes the "3%," I'm not worried about it.
.45 Superman:
I don't think that accurately characterizes the "3%," I'm not worried about it.
I guess you missed all the posts about winter-warfare packing lists, stripper clipped ammo, and rewrapping the handle of your combat knife. What does that characterize?
The fact is that the "prags" do not negatively impact the 3%. All of the legal and political wrangling benefits the 3% (to whatever degree it is successful) or at least does nothing to harm the 3% cause.
The 3% does negatively impact the pragmatists. The political machine quickly dismisses the ravings of militants as cranks and the anti-freedom movement points to them as extremists.
I guess you missed all the posts about winter-warfare packing lists, stripper clipped ammo, and rewrapping the handle of your combat knife. What does that characterize?
Nope--didn't miss it. I just don't agree that preparedness for the worst constitutes advocacy of civil war--any more than I think of a nation state's military training as an aggressive act (having done, in my younger and non-paraplegic days, much such training with the 82nd Airborne, without ever having attacked anyone).
Look--if you want to talk about "wanna-be," I'm your guy. I'm the guy who urges preparedness for fighting the government, knowing full well that I won't be any use in such a fight. I'm the guy who has earned your contempt. Hell--I've earned my own contempt, but that's no one's problem but my own.
If Mr. Vanderboegh and the rest of the real 3% offend you so, feel absolutely free to not be a part of them.
I still don't see why you would feel compelled to attack them, while the real enemy, of both our camps, is lacing up the jackboots.
Hey, quit putting yourself down.
> considering my physical inability to usefully participate in any militia endeavor
Bah. 82nd? How about training? Analyzing intel, running a reloading press, playing armorer or radio operator; can you pilot a ROV? I'm sure I can come up with more.
Just because you can't put on a full battle load and sprint to the front doesn't mean there's nothing for you to do.
Thanks, Jed. Whatever my part is, I'll fill it the best I can.
I just don't agree that preparedness for the worst constitutes advocacy of civil war
With out wading into the debate on what level of 'preparedness' is appropriate or useful, there is an upper limit as to what is practical. I don't think that playing light infantry is advocacy of civil war (I just think it is silly). I think the *actual* advocacy of civil war is an indicator though:
People don’t AGREE on revolution, they are FORCED into it by events. And there are enough of my kind, the three percent, to create the events. Have you learned nothing from history? It is made by determined minorities. We may be a minority but we are determined. If you want to hang onto ANY of your guns or other liberties, you will HAVE to fight. We will make sure of that.
Ultimately the 3% remains people issuing fatwah's on the internet and it really does nothing more productive than "scare the white people" or sell fantasy books.
I don't foresee any outcomes that the 3% is going to generate that will improve our rights, liberties, or our nation in general. Certainly they aren't getting anything done through 'tactical' inaction.
I think you're misinterpreting Mr. Vanderboegh's words. He's a vastly more capable communicator than I am, so I won't presume to attempt to "explain" them.
Again, if the 3% approach strikes you as ineffective, please feel cordially invited to stay the f***in' hell away from it.
You can do so without attacking it.
the problem with prags is their inability to see 3pers as anything other then loud mouth keyboard commandos. In the real world they're just as, if not more, active then the prags.
What percentage of the population is gay/homosexual/whatever the hell the PC term of the day is? What percentage of the population owns guns? Now what percent of THAT number isn't stupid enough to believe that some law or combination of laws is going to stop a criminal?
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. - Samuel Adams
Now look at that with your "gay" glasses on and see that a small percentage CAN make a difference.
Just what the hell is a 3%er?
Well all I can say is what I am, as for others they will have to speak for themselves.
The common perception is a pot bellied, beer guzzling, tobacco chewing, Ford truck with balloon tires driving, cammo. wearing, red neck. As much as I hate to bust your bubbles I don’t ware cammo anything. Not sense my military carrier ended in 1992, nor do I drive a ford pickup with over sized balloon tires. I sure don’t chew tobacco, though I will admit to a potbelly but that is from good cooking and not beer guzzling.
I am a 3%er because I recognize that there is a time when the gun owners must make a stand and say NO MORE, they must be willing to defend that NO MORE with acts of violence when the time comes. But just as with the 3%ers who fought the British in the revolution war we must also use all means to abstain from that war until all peaceful avenues have failed or the gross violation of our rights have been acted upon.
How do we decide when that time is? Well as with anything it is a personal perception of the one who feel their line has been crossed. To date none of us have set down and made a charter that fully describes the last straw, nor did our founding fathers. But our founding fathers used every means to avoid a war first until nothing they said or did had any effect on the outcome of redress of grievances. Then and only then did they put ink to paper and created the Declaration of Independence which openly declared the line.
As with most 3%ers today I believe that the majority will hold until the last means has been exhausted. Also as with the 3%ers 200ish years ago I will not allow a gross violation of my rights by any government force. So if they come to my door kicking it in under threat I will respond with threat. Will I win? Who knows I just might but the person who does not make a stand will never have the knowledge of whether they could of made a deference or not.
opaww
I think you're misinterpreting Mr. Vanderboegh's words. He's a vastly more capable communicator than I am, so I won't presume to attempt to "explain" them.
I would think that a "capable communicator" would use words that communicate what he means. I have never presumed that he didn't say what he meant. If he has articulated a position that you do not hold then why would you defend it?
I can stay the f***in' hell away from it. if I don't agree? That is absolutely beyond words. I would certainly be the "prag coward" if I didn't speak out against this idiocy that you keep backpedaling to defend.
The fact of the matter is that I have had my exchange with Vanderboegh and he stopped being a person with a different point of view when he couldn't continue to discuss the issue on the merits.
Rules of engagement.
Been a lot of finger pointing, name-calling, foot stomping, temper tantrums, and blame with in the pro Gun community. This is leading the anti gunners into laughing fits, because it has divided us even further then we ever were. One side says we should use legal means to fight for our right, the other side say they have had enough banding words and the time is now to act.
Well in a sense both are right and both are wrong. A point I would like to make here is that we have no clear cut rules for engagement that must be defined as to when, where, and how we will react. This is all being left up to our own interpretation as to how many violations we will endure and how we will handle it. Hell we cannot even agree on just what our rights are. Nor how we will defend them.
If we were smart we would be putting together a modern version of the Continental Congress on line and debating with the intent to put together a single document that the vast majority would agree with and support come hell or high water and this would be our guide as to the actions we would take.
A good start would be to create a board for the soul purpose of this debate. The boards will not be for discussing which weapon is best or what type of ammo should be used or anything like that. It would amount to a meeting of minds in forming a modern Continental congress. The Mod’s of the board must keep everything on topic, votes must be taken and all members should cast their vote.
At the least we should have 10 million members who are voicing their opinions. But we may have to settle for a few hundred. This should not be an argument and in fighting board and all opinions are as valid as any others. With a vote we can narrow down the rules.
But all in all this meeting will have no ass unless the people are will to except and defend what is voted on by the majority. Do we have any takers on this task?
opaww
I would think that a "capable communicator" would use words that communicate what he means. I have never presumed that he didn't say what he meant.
Not even the most capable communicator is immune from being misinterpreted by those sufficiently determined to do so. You, clearly, possess such determination. Pat yourself on the back.
If he has articulated a position that you do not hold then why would you defend it?
The only position I've known Mr. Vanderboegh to take on this issue with which I do not agree would be any charge of cowardice on the part of the "pragmatic" types--and I have not defended that.
That is absolutely beyond words.
. . . he says, before gracing us with another paragraph and a half of . . . words. I like irony as much as the next guy.
I would certainly be the "prag coward" if I didn't speak out against this idiocy that you keep backpedaling to defend.
I'm not sure what "backpedaling" I've done, but if you think stomping your little feet about it is "courageous," and if you think doing so is a productive use of your time, then by all means continue your brave campaign of ankle-biting.
The fact of the matter is that I have had my exchange with Vanderboegh and he stopped being a person with a different point of view . . .
Did he stop being a person, or stop having a view, or did his view stop being different? Those are the only possible meanings I could glean from that, and none of them seem to work.
I am, however, not particularly interested in an explanation. I seek not your counsel, nor your arms, Mostly, and have given you as much of my time as I am willing to.
Post a Comment