Questions for the Three Percent

Posted by Mostly Genius – December 5, 2008

The line is where? The militants frequently state that they will “defend themselves and their families.” I find this unimpressive. Everyone (even people who don’t own guns) intends to defend themselves and their families. That is an implied task, like breathing. The militants like to envision a sweeping set of SWAT-type house to house raids that they will initially resist and then begin a bloody civil war.

This is why the “line in the sand” concept is so stupid. It doesn’t constrain the aggressor, it limits the actions of the defender. If the “line” is based upon a specific action or tactic what does that say about other abuses or attacks? It is a pretty big assumption that massive government oppression is going to begin with house to house raids. How about a 100% tax increase, a midnight curfew, conscription, or the nationalization of private assets? Those don’t demand resistance?

3% of what? It is certainly not the general population, registered voters, or gun owners (as is the claim). There are roughly 75 million gun owners in the US. The NRA has roughly 4 million members. The militants are claiming over 2 million people that are going to take up arms and fight a civil war against the government? By comparison, The US Army has about 1.5 million active duty troops.

If there is a voting block of two million people who are willing to chuck it all and fight the government to the death how come they don’t have any representation in the federal government? That group would be about the size of Chicago.

What civil authority? The point at which you no longer believe that the government has any moral or legal right to govern is the point where you are no longer bound by any civil authority. If a police officer stops one of these militants (because he and his vehicle fit the description of say a bank robber) will they submit to being stopped, questioned, and possibly arrested or will that be a gun fight too?

I don’t like to see good citizens arrested anymore than the next guy, but the police have the right to do it. The check against this power is the action that can be brought against the officers and agencies through the courts AFTER the fact. If you fight every time you don’t agree you no longer have a society.

What is up with the gang signs? The stated aim of the group is to force a violent civil war to return the nation to there interpretation of the founder’s republic. I am not making that up, projecting, or insinuating. (If you disagree that revolution is a goal then you need to read more of the edicts and essays put forth by their spokesman.) If you believe that this about the militants defending their homes from government invasion you haven’t been keeping up. There is essentially no utility in drilling as a fire team in small-unit tactics and fieldcraft if you only intend to defend your home.

Street gangs use hand gestures to signify their group allegiance (as well as tagging their signatures.) Signifying support by indicating affiliation is a de facto endorsement of the goals, objectives, and methods of the group. We would reasonably believe that anyone who signed their correspondence with “KKK” to be in support of the racist agenda of that organization. Why is it incorrect to assume that “III” is not indicating support for civil war and domestic terrorism?

All other options are exhausted? If the militants already own a full compliment of personally weaponry and ammunition why keep buying guns? Shouldn’t the rest of that money be pooled for political lobbying, electing favorable candidates, and lawsuits to restrain the government? A few hundred dollars thrown at politics is a cheap commitment compared to death or imprisonment. If the militants do represent 3% of gun owners, then a $100 donation each would be a $225 million war chest. By comparison, an expensive Senate campaign is about $34 million and the NRA typically puts about $1.5 million into all state-level races nationally.

If before engaging in gunfights with the agents of the government, the militants should stop paying their taxes. I imagine if all of the citizens of Chicago got disgusted enough to quit feeding the government coffers it might give a few politicians pause. The IRS audits less than 1% of all tax returns, so an individual militant is pretty safe and those that do get caught can pay their penalties and probably avoid prison.

Update: All of my posts on this topic:
The 3 percenter Nonsense
More 3 percenter Nonsense
The latest round of the 3 percenter Nonsense
Questions for the 3 percent

  • Nam Vet
    I have just visited a couple of sites today on the subject of the the "Three Percenters". I did so because I am concerned with what is taking place in the world and with our own goverment. I am a Viet Nam Vet and a gun owner. I faught for this country because I felt it was my duty. I have not raised a weapon in anger for over thirty-eight years. But I am concerned with the direction the goverment is going. I believe that we have slowly lost some of our personal freedoms over the years and if not for the Tea Party movement (which I have supported and been part of) we would less freedom now. The people are reacting to the anti-constitutional movement the is taking place in our country and our government. The Tea Party movement is addressing this issue through making people aware and using the vote. However, there are still a number of politicians in our goverment who refuse to listen to the people or who believe that they know what is best for the people and continue to make policy that is against the will of the people.

    I believe that the American people believe in individual freedom and will act against those that threaten that freedom. The American people will use thier voice and vote first, but if that voice is not heard, if that vote is disreguarded by the government, that is when we may face tha choice of self-determination through force of arms.

    It has been suggested that a statement be made by not filing taxes. This is more than a poor idea. Fully half the people in this country do not pay taxes! It has been suggested that an armed response would be answered by a military of 1.5 million. A large number of this military is already involved in fighting enemies of this country or otherwise assigned duties around the world. The number of troops that could be put in the field within the country pales by the numbers of potential freedom fighters. You must also ask how many members of the military also believe that the government are not acting in the best interest of the people, how many support or would likely support those that would act for the republic and the constition. how many of the military would be willing to take arms against thier fiends and fellow citizens?

    It is suggested that little could be acheived by drawing a line in the sand (your door step). It is my guess that at the start of the revolutionary war that there was that individual at his door step before the people formed a line at Concord. And it maybe that the first or sencond or third will not rally the people, but maybe the forth will.

    I am sixty-two years old. I have fought in war and taken the lives of men for what I felt was my duty. I would fight and most likely die to preserve this republic and the freedoms I and those before me fought and died to preserve.

    I do not belong to any group. I will be one of those at the door step. But for those who doubt the resolve of freedom loving amaericans, you do so at your own risk!
  • N. Smith
    the crips, bloods, ms 13?

    please

    they don' have the training,knowledge, or numbers oathkeepers and 3%er's do
  • N. Smith
    what about the oathkeepers?
  • Q: The line is where?
    That is the million dollar question for each of us as individuals. Mine is when citizens of my country and more specifically my county start falling to the hands of the FED. I have some specific points that I do not care to publish (as you pointed out that creates a "target" on ME) that would create a time for me to act instead of react. If challengened to a "fight", I will show in force if I believe in the goals of one side. Same would be said if a foreign body attacked the US i would fight side by side with the FED against that threat.
    Q: 3% of what?
    As my Frien Reverend Franz said earlier;"The fact is, that there will always be a small percentage of people who, when faced with the choice of giving something up they hold dear in unfeeling subservience, or risking losing everything, including life, especially when that choice is offered violently or with force, will simply choose to react violently, and in fact risk everything." I beleive the 3% is not a literal number but a representation of that "small number"
    Q: What civil authority?
    This is the reason i believe so many parallels are drawn between the civil rights movement of the 60's. IF i am driving like an ass and the cops pull me over so be it, i screwed up. IF i am obeying the laws but have an "anti" sticker on my car we might have an issue. If i am sitting in my driveway, another house in the area had been raided in the past 30 days and the "blue" descend on me, i consider that and provokeing action and will act accordingally. To be honest if asked to do anything i might complly depending on the day, if ordered... I usually f**k that up.
    Q:What is up with the gang signs?
    Started as more of a "tounge in cheek", no one i know is "flashing signs" like we are claiming a street corner. I still diagree that the "stated aim of the group is to force a violent civil war to return the nation to there interpretation of the founder’s republic." The end goal is correct, the adressing of a potential need for violence is correct. That we, or at least those I know, of the 3% are moving to FORCE a violent revolution is not accurate. You cannot force an ideal as a reaction, that is where the constant barrage of "NO FORT SUMTER" comes in. We are declaing our intent to fight BACK, not incite civil war. For me personally i will concede in the interest of honesty that the United States as She stands today could and should be dissolved into 3-5 smaller republics. I believe this would allow us to work outside the vbox, if we all agree to adhere to the basic fundimentals of our founding documents, the stateists could hace there area, the middle of the road persons theirs and, freedom, constitutional nuts like me ours. All with respect and a common interest. Individual rights for each territory and their encompased states. Yes the "III" is meant as a sign, or symbol. It is an identifier of intent, even call it a warning "push me and i push back, hard". basic school yard BS, but so is life.
    Q: All other options are exhausted?
    We can never have enough guns, ammo.:) The problem with avoiding tax codes 100% is now you have 2 fronts you as an individual are fighting. See Ed and Elaine Brown vs. the IRS. I agree and believe it has been stated by all of the 3% i know and read, activism in the current process and education of liberty is PRIMARY and PARAMOUNT. It is not the only route and may not be a solution, plan for the worst hope for the best. I respect many of the "alleged 3%" and would allow some of the more "famous" to represent me in the Senate, or any other governing board, that does NOT mean i agree with them 100% of the time. Hell i fight with myself over many of these issues. I can and do give what i can, i just sold some guns to "those less prepared" and made a donation to the campaign for liberty, and am considering adding an "lifetime" tag to my NRA membership, and i do not support a majority of the concessions they make. Once again we(I) are not saying the end is HERE, just that the events appearing on the horizon do not appear to be in our favor.

    Good questions, i hope i have answered at least some of them to your satisfaction.
    Jason
    III
    (sorry, without spellcheck i am a mess)
blog comments powered by Disqus