I am afraid that I don’t really have the time or interest to continue to refute every comment point-by-point. You guys certainly don’t lack for verbiage. I will do my best to summarize and represent what I consider to be the major issues in this discussion. While I recognize this steals some fairness from the process I don’t have time to keep saying the same things to the half dozen people posting comments.
Mr. Vanderboegh has responded to my previous statements here: Pragmatism is as pragmatism does
Hopefully I am fairly paraphrasing the 3% position about the “front door” as referenced above, in the comments, and in Vanderboegh’s previous writings:
After some new edict the government will begin some level of house to house actions, and if caught alone (one of the early houses) a 3 percenter intends to shoot it out as best they can. As these raids become more frequent and commonplace, local 3 percenters will band together into fire teams and squads and shoot it out as a group. Eventually this scenario will become cyclical with more resources of government being deployed to deal with a growing resistance until we reach a point of civil war, with the goal of the resistance being a revolution/restoration of the framers republic.
The threat or fear of this cycle of violence is supposed to chasten the government in it’s actions and/or make the agents of the government reconsider taking that action.
Finally this plan is supposed to put everyone on notice that the actions of the government might well push things to the point of kicking this whole course of action into gear.
I hope that is an accurate summary of the 3 percenter position as put forth in your writings and comments. I would say that is a very different and much more limited position from you earlier statement in your much celebrated letter to the editor:
There are some of us “cold dead hands” types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don’t extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.
The “front door” position is about fighting when the government raids your home. The “further restrict” position I would assume has a much broader application? Repealing concealed carry would be a further restriction, but it is unlikely it would cause house to house raids. Which side of the line does that fall on? Are you expanding the position of defending the “front door” or are you retreating from the “further restrictions”?
It seems a common theme amongst the 3 percent that they will not be the ones to start the violence. “No Fort Sumpters” as it were. This presumes that there is some agreed upon triggering event (either “further restriction” or “front door”) that gets the ball rolling, and then we get open civil war:
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.
Am I wrong to read this as once some arbitrary block (or set of blocks) is checked that the 3 percent is then going to “force” civil war? I am guessing through an ever increasing number of independent and/or small group actions as outlined in the “front door” portion. Or does this occur after the government has continued it’s actions and things have escalated to “red dawn” purportions?
As for us Three Percenters, this is as far as we’re backing up. If they draw the line behind us, we will stand where we are. After they come to compel the first few in our homes and succeed in killing us, in effect declaring war upon the lives, liberties and property of the entire American people, the rest of us Three Percenters will defend ourselves by a war of manuever that will make them wish they’d never thought of it.
I think there has been some slight of hand with the term “defense.” It has not been used incorrectly, but has been used inconsistently. We have gone from defending homes and families (direct protection) to a defensive war of maneuver (defense by a good, tactically adept, offense.) If you are going to fight a war then maneuver is the way to go, assuming that your forces can actually operate like that. I can not really speak to skill, training, and readiness of the 3 percenters, but we can all agree that attrition warfare would probably not work out for them. According to the “front door” scheme of maneuver attrition seems to be the “go signal” for opening the wider war.
Regarding what the modern militia movement has done: I can’t think of anything, especially in terms of fighting off tyranny by force of arms. Vanderboegh has suggested a book I need to read that will disabuse of this notion. I have my doubts, but fair enough.
Regarding name-calling: I certainly don’t have the time or effort to go through all of the posts and comments and find all of the references to anyone who doesn’t drink the kool-aide as being some flavor of coward, statist, enabler, traitor, or pany-waist to name just a few. The only name that I have called anyone was “blowhard” and I did so because it was (and remains) accurate.
Regarding references or associations to past military glory: I don’t see how Vanderboegh can deny attempting to bask in the reflected glow of these historical references when he attempts to draw allegorical parallels between the parties involved. I am not an expert, but I think this the propaganda technique known as “transfer.” Apparently it is all just an inspirational style derived from historical facts and anecdotes. It is generally the best thing in all of his essay pieces.
In summary there is a widely scattered disorganized group with a lot of different ideas about where the line is drawn, when action is going to be taken, and what that action will consist of. These variables change not only from individual to individual, but from time to time as well. There are some that are already claiming credit for being “resisters” and a lot that are calling other people cowards over the internet.
As always please feel free to comment, but really try to keep things on point. More that likely I will approve any comment, but unless you are covering new ground I am probably not going to answer it.
Vanderboegh has left his pathetic, straw-man response here. He addresses none of the points above, nor does he clarify, amplify or defend any of his previous statements. Vanderboegh remains a do-nothing blow hard.