Tag: militia

The NRA on Holder

Posted by Mostly Genius – January 9, 2009

The current debate as to what the NRA should do about Holder, I have a few observations. I am not really clear what anyone thinks the NRA can do about this nomination. To have the NRA expend money and influence against something they aren’t going to be able to change doesn’t seem like the wisest course, but I can see the frustration at paying an organization to do “something” and then not have them do it. The point is that right now the Obama administration is probably the most popular in history (either despite or because of not having done anything) and his majorities in congress and the senate make it impossible to stop this nomination.

There isn’t an “NRA Senator” or an “NRA Congressman” just so people are clear. A congressman or senator tries to represent the interests of the people that put him in office, across all topics and issues (at least in theory.) These guys are going to have to wheel and deal in the next four years and are probably not really interested in making enemies in a effort that isn’t going to succeed. By all means call or write them and see if you can get them to change their minds, but throwing that job at the feet of the NRA isn’t going to stop Holder from getting confirmed.

I find it highly ironic that the Militia cranks are calling for the NRA and the “prags” to utilize legal and political means to stop Holder’s confirmation. I thought these were “failed” tactics? From the Militia perspective this is a perfect way to attack the NRA: if they don’t weigh in an expend themselves then they are useless and irrelevant. If the NRA does throw it’s weight behind the issue and it doesn’t work then the NRA is useless and irrelevant. If the NRA actually did manage to burn enough influence to get Holder blocked then the militants would probably take credit.

On a somewhat related note, there has been some discussion of Barrett Firearms boycotting California, and having other manufacturers do the same against the federal government. The threat of a gun manufacturer closing its doors is not much of a threat in the current political climate.

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

Sipsey Street Irregulars

Posted by Mostly Genius – December 4, 2008

The fever swamp of the “Three Percenter” militia movement. Lots of links about overthrowing the government and historical references.

Recent posts:
– MAIG Coordinators Paid as City Employees, Saves Gun-Hater�s Money – Ho, hum. Another Inspector General report. – Did You Hear the One about U.S. Internment Camps? – THE CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY: Boehner said to be blocking Issa committee vote on contempt. His defenders claim Democrat disinformation. If not, it will be time to take the fight to Boehner, the GOP leadership & even Romney. – Talk, talk, talk. Boner and Company send Holder a letter (snooze). – Texas lawmakers play hardball over Fast & Furious – Obama “Memorializing” Brian Terry in the dark. – David Codrea: Issa invites questions while staffers ignore them. – Praxis Questions: Length of pull on a bolt action rifle & how truly important is it to be able to manipulate the bolt while the rifle is seated in your shoulder? – Still stalling.

The latest round of the 3 percenter nonsense

Posted by Mostly Genius – December 2, 2008

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.

(Emphasis mine)
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.

(Emphasis mine)
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.

(Emphasis mine)
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.

Update:

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.

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