fools in sheepdogs’ clothing

Three Percenters” are self-righteous, anarchist, egotistical, self-centered, solipsistic, incorrigible asses, and are appropriately full of shit.

*takes a deep breath* There, I said it, and I will be damned if I do not stand by it. If the previous actions and words of those “three percenters” has been any indication for it, I am going to suffer for it , however, strangely, I am comfortable with that.

And now for the explanation to go along with my opening comments. A while ago, I stumbled across the previously-linked letter to the editor, quoted below:

Dear Editor:

Joe Bialek from Cleveland proposes the licensing and registration of all weapons currently in civilian hands. My question is, how exactly do you propose to do that, Joe?

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.

Are you proposing to come yourself, or do you want someone else’s son or daughter in federal service to take the risk? Are you truly prepared to stack up the bodies necessary to accomplish your plan? Seems a strange way to make a “safer society.” More to the point, are you willing to risk your sorry hide to do it? No? I thought not.

Then quit proposing the next American civil war. We’re done being pushed back from our natural rights without a fight. Be careful what you wish for.

Mike Vanderboegh

At the time, I had absolutely no idea who “Mike Vanderboegh” was, nor why he was writing such pointlessly incendiary, volatile comments. In retrospect, I probably would have been significantly happier remaining in blissful ignorance, but that is not how this story develops.

After reading the above letter, my immediate thought was, “Damn, what a load of cowardly braggadocio,” – after all, where were these self-annointed protectors of God-given liberties when those liberties were “further restricted” by the old Assault Weapons Ban years ago; when those liberties were “further restricted” by the District of Columbia’s outright handgun ban; when those liberties were “further restricted” by Kalifornistan’s current Assault Weapons Ban, ban on certain pistols, and inherently exploitable and exploited “may issue” concealed carry program; when those liberties were “further restricted” by New York City’s firearms ban; when those liberties were “further restricted” by police officers illegally confiscating firearms from Hurricane Katrina victims; when those liberties were “further restricted” by all of the other hundreds of laws, regulations, and restrictions imposed on firearm purchasing, ownership, transportation, use, and carrying? Oh, right, they were exactly where they are now – behind their keyboards, making uselessly inflammatory comments, proclaiming themselves to be the defenders of all that is good and free in America.

Excuse me, but that is patently and obviously bullshit.

Or, at least, it is bullshit if you take them at their word – that they would be willing to “kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty”. Oddly enough, however, they do not even take themselves at their own word… Behold a comment from the same Mike Vanderboegh from just a few days ago:

Our aims are:

a. to defend ourselves and our liberty and property at our front door steps. We will not back up any more. It is the feds who will bring the war to us, first.

b. to warn anyone who desires further encroachments upon our liberty and property that there will be consequences for their actions, thus, hopefully, to reduce the threat becoming reality.

c. to make it plain to every one, prags included, that the time is fast approaching — thanks to the “authorities” — when they will have to choose, so they’d better get ready to shoot, shit, or hit the fence.

Our tactics are defined by those aims.

(Emphasis added.)

The funny part is I can actually agree with the bolded part – I can understand defending yourselves and your family from “jack-booted thugs” on your doorstep (since that is basically the hypothetical situation these “three perecenters” would paint). The problem is, the bolded segment more or less axiomatically disagrees with his previous letter to the editor, as well as section b. in the current comment… except when you read both of those, and replace “our” with “my”.

And that, dear readers, is the crux of my problem with the “three percenter” movement. After wasting considerable amounts of time reading their writings, the only conclusion I can come to is that they do not give to farts about America’s liberties and freedom – they only care about their own liberties and freedoms, and whatever perceived slights or affronts to them they see the government doing. They do not care that their writings (such as the letter to the editor) have almost undoubtedly done more harm than good by alienating readers. They do not care that there are political and social means and methods for airing their grievances, making changes in the governmental system, and making headway in terms of liberties and rights… and doing it all peaceably and without fomenting armed rebellion. They do not care that their proposed, poorly-thought-out actions have no clear-cut termination or resolution. They do not care that those actions would result in the deaths of many, many innocent people – people who had no interest in the situation, people whose choices were made for them by a merry band of “three percenter” misfits, people who might have supported them politically. They do not care that they do not have public support now, and they sure as hell would not have public support were they to follow through on their threats. They do not care that public support is the only way to make permanent, lasting changes in the American governmental system. They do not care that they appear to have absolultely no plans concerning what to do with the smoldering and shattered remains of the country after their glorious revolution (which indicates an admission of having no hope of success). They obviously do not care about standing up and fulfilling their useless promises in the past, when Americans’ Second-Amendment-protected rights were being “further restricted” (much less other rights going out the window). They do not care about all this, and more.

No, they only selfishly care about themselves, perceived indignities done unto them, and stroking their own little egos. Their “line in the sand” is a carefully-crafted circle around their own little feet… and nothing more. In fact, were I a psychologist, I might ramble on about some unfulfilled, Freudian quest for control in their lives, because that is effectively what this all condenses to – just like the supposedly dysfunctional, tyrannical, oppressive government they are purportedly fighting against, all the “three percenters” want is control, not only over their own lives, but over everyone else’s lives too. Observe:

You fool. You don’t have to agree with us. In fact, we’re counting on your type folding at the first shock. 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 added.)

That, right there, is damnably frightening. It really would not trouble me considerably if this deluded bunch of crusading misfits decided to commit suicide-by-SWAT-team – it would be their choice, and I am nothing if not a staunch believer in freedom of choice and the inviolate responsibilities it carries. I might be annoyed at them deciding to use the taxpayers’ ammunition as opposed to their own, but that is a small enough quibble. However, when that same troupe of backyard heroes starts threatening to make me partake in their half-assed, unplanned, goal-lacking, unsupported revolution… well, then you will find out where my “line” is. I respond very poorly to force, whether it is wielded by men in uniform, men in suits, or men with a holy mission.

Additionally, what happened to blaming the “authorities” for the supposedly impending “consequences for their actions”? Multiple sections of the above-quoted comment certainly makes it appear as though the “three percenters” will be the instigators in any impending actions, rather than some other poorly-defined, nebulous entity or group. What we have here is yet another contradiction in their own words, another logical disconnect, and another exposure of just how uncoordinated and discombobulated this “movement” and the thought process behind it is. It is comforting that these same people are actively proposing an armed and violent rebellion, is it not?

And speaking of “lines”, I present you this jewel from yet another “three percenter”:

Admit it: for you, Sebastian, mostlygenius and others, there IS NO LINE. You’ll let them walk in your front door, take every gun you own and rape your wife on the way out. And then you’ll shake your fist and swear that The Line is when they start to REALLY ignore the Constitution.

That is how the Defenders of the American Way respond to people who dare disagree with them, whether those disagreeing are fellow Second Amendment activists or not. And people with that mindset (and worse) honestly think their meager proposed rebellion would accomplish anything? They honestly imagine they are, in any way, qualified or capable of determining when that rebellion should take place? They honestly believe they are the ones who should guide America out of its supposed darkness and back into the light?

I would be laughing my ass off right about now if that proposition were not so horribly pathetic.

In the end, the “three percenters” will amount to nothing. Speaking optimistically, three percent of the firearm-owning populace of America is approximately 3 million individuals – less than one percent of the overall population of the States. The American Revolution, on the other hand, required approximately 30%+ of popular support and involvement to succeed, and that victory was a very narrow one at best. Furthermore, that revolution is drastically different than the one proposed by the “three percenters”, in that it simply resulted in one faction of a far-reaching empire breaking off and becoming its own entity, whereas the “three percenters” are proposing an entire governmental reconstruction of the same country by way of armed rebellion. History shows probabalistically unfavorable outcomes for those kinds of events, no matter how good the intentions were that started them. However, should the “three percenters” ever actually decide to put their hollow words into action (which, I propose, will take place somewhere between hell freezing over and the entropic death of the universe, given their previous inactivity), their misguided, doomed-to-failure flailings will only result in stronger public opinions against firearms and firearm owners, stronger laws controlling and restricting firearm ownership, and their immortalization as martyrs in the eyes of the next generation of crackpots and conspiracy theorists. In reality, that idolization may be what the “three percenters” desire the most.

Before anyone starts wildly throwing accusations around, I am not, in any way, proposing silencing these buffoons. They are free to blather and bluster and bumble on about whatever their little hearts desire, just as I am free to call them out as incompetent, irresponsible, tin-pot revolutionaries – such are the joys of the First Amendment. Furthermore, I intentionally have not defined specifically where my personal “line in the sand” is, nor will I ever do so on this weblog or in a public format – that choice is mine, no one is in any position to question or belittle it, and attempts to do so will be responded to accordingly. Finally, I remain a proud (and, dare I say it, vocal) firearm owner and carrier, and an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment as well as the entirety of the United States Constitution. However, supporting and defending one aspect of the Constitution does not give me or anyone else the right to ignore the rest of that document simply because you feel the desire, and it certainly does not give you the right to overthrow the entire shindig because you have deluded yourself into thinking it necessary. Checks and balances are already built into the Constitutional system of government, and, so far as I can tell, they are still mostly in effect, however, if they were not, the time to act has already come and passed… which only goes to further prove the empty facade of the “three percenters”.

Oh, and, no worries, I will be standing by for the impending wave of flames, ad hominems, strawman arguments, specious analogies to previous historical events and revolutions, and insults against me, my political leanings, my family, and my genetic lineage… From all the time I squandered reading up on the “three percenters”, that pretty much seems to be their modus operandi, at least when they are not proclaiming themselves to be heroes of the people.

44 thoughts on “fools in sheepdogs’ clothing”

  1. Nice post and thank you for the link. You should probably just go ahead and tape down your delete key now, because you have called down the torrent of drivel.

  2. No worries.
    Hopefully none of the “three percenters” will behave in a way that would make me want to delete their comments, but it honestly would not surprise me if they did.

  3. Stand by with the delete key oh ye defender of the 1st Amendment:
    An ardent three percenter here. I’d hate for you to have wasted all those keystrokes and not get some sort of feedback from we the maligned.
    Your discourse here reminds me ever so much of the phrase “You can’t polish a turd”. I laud you on your literary prowess, but the rank mischaracterization that is the essence of your message is positively astonishing. In short I find your remarks to be so much horseshit with a pretty bow placed on top.
    Go on bleating about how you’re “an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment as well as the entirety of the United States Constitution.” Undoubtedly you derive some warm fuzzies from telling yourself that. Meanwhile the Constitution is treated more and more as a curiosity to be paraded before school children, while simultaneously black uniformed “gubmint” thugs trample it underfoot every day.
    You and the rest of the flock can continue to crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. More than a few of us have decided enough’s enough, and the derisive sounds of your BAAA BAAAA BAAA will have all the effect of water on a duck’s butt.
    Let’s see what effect some expert marksmanship and field-craft will have… if properly applied at the appropriate time and place.

  4. Thanks for the publicity. In answer to your rhetorical, “Where were you when…” diatribe, I was in the 501st, teaching my squad that in order to fulfill their Oath of enlistment, they needed to study the Constitution. How can you support and defend something, if you don’t know what it is?
    I hope you are right, and we amount to nothing. That means we have succeeded in forcing the government into halting its incremental tyranny. We are not planning any attacks on the government, as you prags seem determined to misunderstand. We are planning defense against tyranny.
    The only dangerous comment I see here is the assumtion that we are full of shit. That self-delusion may help you sleep at night, but everyone that knows me personally knows that if I take the time to say something, it is the truth. I have done everything I said I would. I do not take my commitment lightly. I am not out to impress folks into liking me. I am out to impress the government that people like me who have tried to do things ‘the right way’ and ‘work within the system’ have had enough of the lies and corruption that thwart honest men of principle. Enough! I will not take one step back. As Mike says, if you move the line behind where we now stand, then you will have to kill us, for we will not be moved.
    Consider this, will you wait until you are disarmed to decide to resist? If you have to ponder a moment because the answer is not ready on your lips, then you need to read this:
    And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say goodbye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling in terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst; the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”
    – The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    We are standing on principle in what we see is the last chance to preserve the Constitution and freedom. If we do not speak out, how can we expect the government to heed our demands that they honor their Oaths to the Constitution? There are some things in this world which are worth risking death. The U.S. Constitution is one of those. Since I do not believe I am going to make it off the planet alive, I will make my stand here. You can do what you want.
    “If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams

  5. “Furthermore, I intentionally have not defined specifically where my personal “line in the sand” is, nor will I ever do so on this weblog or in a public format”
    Coward. Lying coward. You are obviously so unable to face reality and so angry at yourself because of that fact. Therefore, this is what you post. I feel sorry for you. You won’t define it because a permanent line doesn’t exist. And I think you’re ashamed of yourself because of it.

  6. If you think we are so insignificant amounting to nothing more than vocal keyboard commandos then why did you waste so much verbiage trying to persuade people to ignore us? You seem to have missed a lot of the points Mike makes in his writings.
    No Fort Sumter’s. We are not starting anything. The point of the letters and vocalizations is to make it clear that we will not start anything but we will be prepared to finish it or die trying. We will react to government actions that cross the line that has been drawn. You call yourself a libertarian but you seem to have a problem with us limiting the line in the sand to our immediate space calling us selfish and egotistical. How can we maintain a reactionary position and NOT limit it to our immediate space? It is stating that we will not initiate action that we are drawn inside that personal circle in order to avoid the fight. It will be the government that crosses the line and raids a home on trumped up charges sparking the powder keg. You ask where we were when the current limits to the 2nd were enacted. Well make up your mind do you want to make a stand or not! You say we are all talk and no action but then you are critical of the action??? Your right we did give and give before. That does not make it foolish to draw the line now and profess “I will go no further!” Do you believe in liberty and freedom or not? No one is saying that the time to talk is over. In fact that’s the whole rationalization for being upfront about the reaction that will follow. If you don’t present the alternative what will bring the other side back to reality? The gun control movement seems hell bent on disarming America. Are you telling me that you trust in the political process alone to deter this agenda? What ground do you negotiate from? You list the usurpations to our right to bear arms and ask “where were we?” Do you not think we opposed these actions at the time? Do you not think that we trusted in the political process at that time to stop that agenda? We did, we were where you are today. Since they began this process in the early part of the last century they have sliced off more and more of the 2nd and we trusted the political process to hold the line. Because they have nothing in the negotiation they have no tangible property or right that they give up they have the time to be patient. WE loose every time a compromise is reached we give up something and they give up nothing other than time. OUR box gets smaller every time the subject comes up in Washington. If you want to be the pragmatic one fine, talk to them till your blue in the face. Point to us and say “please by all means deal with me because the alternative is to deal with those 3% and they are fraking crazy”. That’s the point of presenting the alternative, if they have something to actually give up, life liberty or property, you can get them to stop and think about how their actions will play out. Somehow I do not think that will work and when all is said and done you will be back on our doorstep saying “you were right”.

  7. Linoge,
    You know me fairly well from my blog posts, and thus, you know that I am not one to advocate the harm of fellow citizens unprovoked.
    I believe that firearms are for self-defense and not to instigate mayhem.
    Yet I fully believe that the three percenters have a valid point to be considered. The fact that many of us believe in the validity of their argument is no automatic indication that we are a bunch of subversive nutcases.
    I truly hope you do not lump all of us into the sweeping characterizations you have made here. That would not be a fair assessment.
    The Liberty Sphere

  8. The steady erosion of Americans’ liberties are just “perceived slights”? Unconscionable anti-gun statutes and the misnamed PATRIOT Act have eviscerated the Second and Fourth Amendments yet these are only “perceived slights”? Ruby Ridge, the Waco massacre, and thousands of Americans incarcerated for the “crime” of peaceably exercising an unalienable individual right are only “perceived slights”? Police and federal agents who swear an oath to adhere to the Constitution then spend careers betraying that oath while trampling on the people and liberties they’re supposed to protect are just “perceived slights”? Incredible, simply incredible.
    With such deficient morality and cognitive ability, it’s no wonder why you’re unable to discern the subtle distinction between “to farts” and “two farts.”

  9. What’s in a name?
    My latest exchange with MostlyGenius has provoked his electronic confrere, one self-named “Linoge”, into this peroration here:
    Entitled “fools in sheepdogs’ clothing,” Linoge begins:
    “Three Percenters” are self-righteous, anarchist, egotistical, self-centered, solipsistic, incorrigible asses, and are appropriately full of shit.
    Well, OK, then. Another country heard from. I will answer the substance of his complaint in another essay. But I was fascinated by his moniker. I’ll make a wild guess and say that this ain’t the name his daddy gave him. Ergo, he chose it. So what is a “linoge”? I thought first it might be French. But the French-English dictionary search function returned “Le mot linoge n’a pas été trouvé.” Roughly translated, “Your stupeed request is silly you know, you ignorant American.”
    There is a fellow calling himself “Linoge” elsewhere on MySpace, found here “ who is a Satanist. He’s a different guy from our Linoge, but he apparently takes his name from the same place, a Stephen King novel called Storm of the Century.
    From the Wikipedia description of the opening of the book:
    A very powerful blizzard hits the fictional small town of Little Tall Island (also the setting of King’s novel Dolores Claiborne) off the coast of Maine. While trying to deal with the storm, the citizens of the town are visited by Andre Linoge (Colm Feore), a menacing stranger who apparently knows all of the townsfolks’ darkest secrets (among which are abortion, adultery, growing marijuana, and gay-bashing). After having killed one of the town’s residents (Martha Clarendon), Linoge is jailed. Even though he is kept in jail by the town’s trusted constable, Mike Anderson (Timothy Daly), Linoge is somehow able to force people to commit suicide or kill others from within his cell. Linoge constantly repeats “Give me what I want and I’ll go away” through his victims as well as to his victims.
    Linoge, of course, is an anagram of legion, as in the Gerasene demon found in Mark 5:9
    And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.
    and Luke 8:30:
    And Jesus asked him, saying, What is thy name? And he said, Legion: because many devils were entered into him.
    You may remember that Jesus ends up casting the demons out of the man and, granting their request that they not be sent back to Hell, allowed them to dwell in a herd of pigs. The pigs then drowned themselves in the Sea of Galilee.
    OK, so maybe it’s a good name for a Danish Satanist with a url of But why would our fulminating critic choose such a name? He claims in an on-line profile that he is “a moderate, small-l-libertarian, Christian, with a warped outlook on life and a strong sense of self-reliance, self-defense, and probably self-importance.”
    Uh, huh. A Christian who selects an on-line name whose principal meaning, as near as can be determined, is an evil character from a Stephen King novel and a bunch of swine-dwelling demons who kill themselves.
    His tiny footprint on the ‘Net tells us that he is a fan of science fiction television shows such as Firefly (see, Battlestar Gallactica and Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles. He speculates on the important question of why the reclusive Firefly character “Mr. Universe” (who isolates himself from all human contact, marries a cybernetic “lovebot” in a Jewish wedding ceremony, and yet remains fascinated by his fellow humans, keeping track of their every move by means of his own private futuristic NSA) fails to have pornography on his many media monitors. That’s easy, answers Legion, uh, I mean, Linoge, “he just wanted to be faithful!” He then expresses admiration for the onanistic Mr. Universe’s control room: “Either way, as command lairs go, it is definitely up there.”
    OK, let’s recap. We’ve got a self-described Christian who takes the name of demons literary and literal, but who admires a fictional character who embodies the emotionally stunted masturbatory teenager’s fantasy of knowing and smugly denouncing everything, but is at the end proven to be merely a sad, pathetic character who dies alone never having known true love or real life. But that’s OK, because the “command lair . . . is definitely up there.”
    What’s in a name? Demons as appreciated by an onanist. Sheesh.

  10. Mike (part the first): What is in my chosen online callsign?
    Well, it could be all those things you baselessly hypothesized, and more.
    … Or it could simply be the username I started employing years ago in high school, simply because I liked the sound of it, and no one else was really using it. Nah, that would be too simple… and too accurate for folks like you, especially considering that it would completely incinerate your sad little straw-man.
    And here I thought the hoplophobes had the market cornered when it comes to projection… you certainly have helped prove to me that you are, in the end, no better than those deluded fools. It is certainly no surprise to me that your argumentative tactics bear a striking resemblance to those who would gladly strip me of my rights…
    I should, however, take a moment to thank you for expanding my vocabulary. One can always depend on life-long bullies and harrassers, such as yourself, for providing new and interesting ways to try to insult and demean other people. Bravo.
    GunRights4Us: Well, on top of your misguided beliefs, you also demonstrate a quaint ignorance concerning the Constitution. How cute. Simply put, my deciding to delete your comment (which, I would point out, I have not, nor will not, do) is no violation of the First Amendment – instead, it is me exercising my rights as a private property owner… something you “three percenters” are supposed to know all about, supposedly. The First Amendment, as it is so written in the Constitution, only applies to Congress (hence the first word in that Amendment).
    Moving on… If you are so convinced that the Constitution is being ignored, and that it is nothing more than an empty showpiece any more, then why are you not doing something about it? What happened to “kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty”? Or are those nothing more than the empty words you and I both know they are? If there really are such infringements on the Constitution taking place on a daily basis, then where are you? Where are you with your spineless promises? Where are you with your useless actions? Where are you with your piddly revolution?
    You are exactly where you are right now – carefully drawing a cute little line in the sand around your own little feet, and curling up with your self-importance at night, convincing yourself that you are the last bastion of all that is good and free in America. How sad. On the flip side, I will again point out that the inactivity of the “three percenters” could possibly expose an interesting subconscious realization on their part that their proposed actions were doomed from the very beginning. It must suck to be that internally conflicted…
    As for the rest of your comment… just more ad hominems, hyperbole, and childishness, as I already knew to expect from your ilk.
    CorbinKale: Thanks for reminding me of my strongest aversion to writing long posts – equally-long responses. (Given that it would appear as though “three percenters” have no concept of humor, sarcasm, or irony, the previous sentence was intended as a paltry amalgamation of all three.)
    Furthermore, thank you for your service, both by being in the military and by attempting to enlighten your soldiers. I was constantly amazed by how little about the Constitution some of my fellow sailors knew during my time in, though it did lead to some interesting and lengthy conversations on the bridge. I did what I could to educate them, but sometimes that required going all the way back to the beginning and starting all over again.
    You do, however, seem to misunderstand my use of the word “nothing”. I meant for it to indicate that your actions would not yield any results. Not anything at all. Ideally, for me, that would be the best case scenario of you “three percenters” staging your cute little uprising. Realistically, I know that such actions would actually result in a lot, and I already mentioned some of the distinct possibilities in my post (“…stronger public opinions against firearms and firearm owners, stronger laws controlling and restricting firearm ownership, and their immortalization as martyrs in the eyes of the next generation of crackpots and conspiracy theorists.”). However, if you honestly think your small numbers are going to accomplish much of anything positive at all, you are sorely deluding yourself (even moreso than you already are). “Flash in the pan” would be the most apt (and coincidentally apropos) description, I do believe, especially given that you do not, nor would not, have popular support – without that, no revolution, uprising, or revolt has ever succeeded.
    As for my assertion that the “three percenter” movement is full of shit, it stands, for this simple reason – the line has already been moved behind you, repeatedly, and you and everyone else like you submitted, took the step back, and then set your adorable little camp back up, proclaiming that you will never move, ever again. And then you went and moved again. And again. And again. And again. According to some of the very same “three percenters”, the Constitution is under daily assault, and where are you and your friends? Oh, right, picking yourselves up, moving back behind the line again, and setting up that wonderful little propaganda machine all over again.
    All bark, no bite.
    Speaking up is one thing. Threatening a country-destroying revolution simply because you are upset? That is something else entirely.
    I had a private bet with myself as to when the Samuel Adams quote would be ineffectively wielded… Unfortunately, I lost, given that it was not in the first comment. That said, it simply serves as an example that the egotistical hubris of the “three percenters” knows no bounds at all.
    jt: As I have already pointed out, no one, not even you, is in any position to question or belittle my decision to keep the location of my line private. Childishly calling me names and displaying your own demeaning tendencies certainly will not change that. I am quite comfortable with the location and disposition of my line in the sand… it would appear as though it were you and your fellow “three percenters” who are the ones filled with impotent anger and subconscious shame.
    grenadier1: Equally, you seemed to miss a lot of the points I was making.
    The “no further” mantra seems to have been going on for quite some time. Yet where was the action in all of those previous restrictions and limitation I mentioned? Where was the armed uprising? Where was the “powder keg” exploding? Where were any of you folks fulfilling your promises to “kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty”?
    I cannot be critical of your actions, because you have not taken any, and that is what I am critical of, and what I cannot abide – blatant and outright hypocrisy. JT alledges that I have no fixed line in the sand – I simply see that as nothing more than another form of projection. The “line in the sand” has been moving for the “three percenters” for as long as they have existed, and yet they have never, not once, done a bloody thing about it. No revolution. No ambush downstairs. Nothing. And yet the “three percenters” just seem to be getting louder and louder that this is our line in the sand (this time), and this is where we will stand (this time), and this is what we (might) do (this time), and just more and more pointless ego stroking that is just serving to alienate more and more people who were on the fence (and just a few fellow Second Amendment activists to boot).
    Yeah, because, obviously you all have fulfilled your promises in the past… Give me a break.
    Martyn: Despite my taking them to task, I agree that the “three percenters” have a point – eventually, this grand experiment of our constitutional republic might fail. It has not yet. It is nowhere near. If it were, armed resistance might be necessary.
    However, constantly proclaiming “we are going to stand here and not move”, with the threat of violence to back up that proclamation, and then moving “here” when the situation seems to call for it… that is helping nothing, and is instead alienating people, damaging causes, and making the situation worse for everyone even remotely involved. Furthermore, it is blatantly and patently hypocritical.
    Do they have a point? Yes. Are they going about expressing that point well? Not a fraking chance, and that is my problem. What they are proposing would be akin to me letting my apartment manager know we need more fire extinguishers by burning the complex down. That gosse just does not fly.
    AnnoLiberatis: Thank you for perfectly proving my point. I could not have done it any better than you just did.
    For all you self-important, blow-hard, over-inflated “three percenters”, where was your promise to “kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty” during the situations AnnoLiberatis illustrated? Why is now the line, when that line has already been moved past your previous stances numerous times before? Why has your claim always been “this point and no further”, despite the government always pushing past that point, and none of you doing anything?
    If all of those events and happenings were really so bad, where were you?
    Your promises are meaningless before they even leave your mouths.
    Oh, and thank you for pointing out my typographical error, AnnoLiberatis – sometimes my fingers get away from me when I am typing, and honest errors do occur. Leave it two [sic] a childish, wanna-be absolutist like you too [sic] make an issue of it, though.
    Mike (part the second): Poor Mike. His straw-man comment tweaked my spam-catching software (the comment had over three links – that tends to tweak most anti-spam-comment software), and his little feelings got hurt. Unfortunately, I was at work all day, and could not let it out of the void. However, if you care to look, it, as well as your second comment, are out there for the whole world to see. Does that assuage your gasbag ego? Something tells me to doubt it.

  11. Linoge,
    I am not deluding myself, nor do I hold my position to impress you, or gain your approval. If I accomplish nothing more than dying with my integrity intact, that will be more than enough for me. We are all doomed to die, but we are not all doomed to die as slaves. I have stated why I have chosen this course. Your blog offers one more opportunity for me to get my message out so that I might honor my Oath to the Constitution.
    It is about standing up for what I know is right. Only the folks who show up on my property in black riot gear demanding that I lay down arms will ever know for sure if I am full of shit. It isn’t about staging a cute uprising. Your methodical persecution of those who have taken a public stand is nothing more than you projecting your own lack of resolve, though from your statement, you took the same Oath I did. Face it, you are the one who is inconsequential in all of this. The one who will accomplish nothing. In fact, I bet you expected the Sam Adams comment, because you know deep down you are exactly the kind of guy he was addressing. Right, Sunshine?
    Linoge says: Do they have a point? Yes. Are they going about expressing that point well? Not a fraking chance, and that is my problem. What they are proposing would be akin to me letting my apartment manager know we need more fire extinguishers by burning the complex down. That gosse just does not fly.
    They say that all analogy is suspect, but good grief! It would be more accurate to say that we are buying our own fire extinguishers, writing letters to the landlord, the housing authority and all the tenants proclaiming the danger of fire, then putting out the flames ourselves when the landlord sets the building afire for the insurance.

  12. Linoge,
    it is funny how these so called “3 percenters” are so fucked in the head that they cannot even get along with their fellow gun owners…
    i suspect that these are the people that we see at public ranges double fisting desert eagle .50s dressed in full tactical gear.
    of course, people like that are the reason that private clubs exist, and why i so hate public ranges…
    Mike, why dont you and your fellow mall ninjas go get all constitutional on someone else’s ass?
    I hear Paul Helmke is looking for people to disagree with

  13. CorbinKale: You are correct – all analogies are inherently flawed. That said, mine still remains more rigorous than yours. The “three percenters” are the ones who are proposing tearing down the entire establishment simply because they are unhappy. That is not ‘writing letters’, that is not doing something constructive like ‘buying our own fire extinguishers’, that is breaking out the gorramed thermite, and lighting the fuse yourselves. What the “three percenters” are proposing is in no way constructive, no way helpful, no way useful, and no way beneficial to anyone except themselves, and that just barely.
    Oh, and, psst… the problem with deluding yourself is, sometimes, you do not know you are doing it. Just one of those things.
    You certainly are big on the whole “I am not here to impress anyone” schtick, though – if you keep that up, it is definitely going to start falling under the “methinks he dost protest too much” category. At any rate, if you want to get your message out more thoroughly, start your own weblog (if you have not already, and if you have, feel free to link back to it with your comments). Actual weblogs tend to get more exposure than comments on others’.
    And, sorry, just “taking a public stand” is not enough. Taking a public stand for raising your own private war against the American populace as a whole is the wrong stand to take, whether you are willing to admit it or not. Taking a public stand for tearing down the country around yours and everyone else’s ears is the wrong stand to take. Taking a public stand advocating senseless violence where governmental recourse and proceedures still have not failed is the wrong stand to take. So long as you and people like you keep taking public stances like that, I and people like me will continue to call you out as rabble-rousing misfits with nothing better to do with their time than foment rebellion and stroke their own suppressed ego.
    Regarding the quote, it would fall under my aforementioned “specious analogies to previous historical events and revolutions”. Drawing faulty and flawed analogies between themselves and previous revolutionaries seems to be a standard operating procedure for “three percenters”, and that quote is the one most often misused in their pointless and useless ramblings. That it came up was a predetermined outcome, the only question was “when?”
    As for my oath, I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Should the “three percenters” ever get off their collective, hypocritical asses and actually do something, depending on the situation, I would be very hard-pressed not to consider them qualified as “enemies, domestic”, for the simple fact that revolution against a Constitutionally-operating government is not Constitutional, by very definition. Tearing down the country simply because you are upset with the way it is run is not Constitutional. Engaging in open warfare against fellow citizens, with no planned end, ultimate goals, or plausible, positive outcome is not Constitutional. (There is a possibility that, depending on the situation, I would not make that determination, but so far as I can forsee the future, that possibility remains quite small.) Furthermore, if you have somehow brainwashed yourself into thinking such things are actually Constitutional, then why have you not done so already? As multiple previous commenters have already pointed out, the Constitution has been trampled upon, mangled, beaten, and assaulted countless times before. Why here? Why now? Why not before? If the government really is not Constitutionally-operating any more, then why the lack of action? Why the lack of anything, except more sad little men drawing more sad little lines in the sand, and then taking two steps back when the government tells them to do so, and doing it all over again?
    Spare me your hyperbolic, soap-box preaching.
    Chris: Sadly, this is what comes of dealing with absolutists, especially when those absolutists are really just relativists in denial. Wanna-bes. Sad little men in sad little worlds that they think only they can save, only they realize they do not stand a chance, so they just keep getting more and more repressed, more and more obsessed, and more and more upset. Something tells me, one of these days, one of them is going to snap, and it is neither going to be pretty, nor the “powder keg” they all are plotting.
    Why they spend so much time assaulting, berating, and demeaning their fellow gun owners, and so little time substantively arguing (as opposed to pointlessly threatening) with the anti-rights folks, however, I will never understand.

  14. Oh, and this deserves its own comment.
    Regarding Mike’s threat to “make” fellow gun-owners fight with him when he feels as though the time is right (or it is that time of the month, I suppose), a friend of mine had this to say:

    Interestingly enough, and feel free to add this if you wish, I’m currently reading a biography on Mao. What he and the other Communists did during their long rise to power was, when they temporarily took over an area, forced and encouraged people to commit horrible atrocities during the inevitable purges, then, when the authorities were about to take bake the area, those people would have no choice but to leave w/ the CCP forces in fear of the retribution THEY would receive for what they had done.

    Sound familiar?

    Familiar indeed…

  15. Excuse me. My point was very simple: You don’t have a line in the sand. Folks that do don’t mind saying where it is. That’s because they wish to AVOID the conflict that would result in the crossing of that line. DON’T YOU GET IT? Mike is not asking for civil war. He is warning against it and trying to avoid it. Your refusal to state publicly your “line” is evidence you have no line at all. While proclaiming your support for 2A you simultaniously refuse to reveal what event would prompt you to defend it. I have been married to the same woman for 17 years. I have four children stretched from ages 3 to 16. I can’t imagine life without them. Even more, I can’t imagine leaving my children without a father. However, even more scary than that is dying, knowing I could have helped to prevent the further enslavement of my children and grandchildren to the point they had no hope, no choice, in resisting the tyranny that they have inherited. I don’t remember where I read this but I paraphrase – ” If you won’t fight now when victory is possible, there may come a time when you must fight when victory is improbable. Even worse, there may come a time when you must fight when there is no hope for victory at all.” You sound like the latter. Here’s hoping you change your mind before it’s too late.

  16. JT: Excuse me. My point was very simple: you have no point.
    You do not know if I do or do not have a line in the sand. You do not know where it is if I have one. You do not know me. You do not know my tactics. You do not know my reasoning for not disclosing whether or not I have a line or where it is if it exists. You do not know my priorities. You do not know when I would fight, or if I would fight, or what I would do were I to fight.
    You. Know. Nothing.
    Futhermore, that wonderful little quote you put up applies FAR more to you and your fellow “three percenter” merry men – you are the ones itching for a fight just to prove your manhood. The opportunities have been presented multiple times in the past (as already pointed out by your clueless compatriots) – why have you not taken them?
    Which brings me back to my point – you have no point. More posturing. More namecalling. More childishness. More gasbag blowhards inflating themselves as hard and as fast as they can.
    Does this gos-se ever get old for you?

  17. Still, you have no “line”. You pretend there is one so you can rationalize your fear. That’s sad.

  18. Still, you make baseless assumptions and flawed accusations. You and other “three percenters” like you pretend you are better so you can rationalize your own internal repression, lacking self-worth, and general-purpose impotence.
    That, my friend, is “sad”.

  19. Linoge,
    I am going to say this one last time. If you insist on being a brick, there is no help for it.
    1. We aren’t going to start any wars. We will simply make the government aware that we are determined to defend ourselves from anticipated attack, and go from there. If the attack never comes, we win. If we are forced to fight, we did not succeed in our purpose of averting the conflict.
    2. We haven’t defended our rights by credible deterence before, because we listened to you prags who advocate working within the system, not rocking the boat and not upsetting the timid among us ‘gun owners’. We tried it your way. It doesn’t work. Now we do it the old way, except we don’t fire the opening shots, this time.
    I don’t think even you know what your position is. You chastise us for supposedly planning to start some conflict, then, in the same post, ridicule us for not starting any conflicts. If you reply one more time with, “Why haven’t you taken up arms against the feds, yet? You guys are hypocrites!” I will have to assume that you were dropped as a child.
    I know the BATFE reads these blogs. Google isn’t difficult to figure out, and any site with ‘three percent’ or ‘Vanderboegh’ is bound to be seen by federaly employed eyes, on a daily basis. I don’t have my own blog, though. If you are going to be a useful idiot for them, I may as well use you, too.

  20. where is this sand and why is everyone wanting to draw lines in it?
    is this some kind of dick measuring contest?
    usually the ones that make the most demands and are the loudest are the ones without much to measure…
    but i digress…
    for some reason your ilk seems to think that people need to be constantly reminded that there is a final option… how many times do you have to say “or else”
    instead of winning allies, you are driving it home that you are lunatics… i know, i know you dont really care… but without the general public’s support, you will loose every time.

  21. You are obviously one of those people who care more about your on-line, established reputation than being open to personal challenges. You absolutely refuse to reveal your “line” even though you claim to have one. You remind me of a line my cousin always uses (although he uses it in good humor) when he knows he has no argument: “Oh yeah…..well”. (followed by: Your ugly, or Your mamma wears combat boots, etc)He’s a Vietnam Vet and a Purple Heart by the way and a personal hero of mine. Anyway, I hope you can be persauded to open your mind a little to what is obvious but to a ridiculed few (probably around three percent). 🙂

  22. and just who the hell are you to think that you have some right to know what anyone else’s breaking point is?
    or that they should proclaim it aloud to you and the rest of the world…
    unless you are a LEO trying to stir the pot up enough to get someone to say something incriminating. which is my guess.

  23. Linoge,
    Thanks for your response earlier.
    Here is my take on the 3 percenters.
    A warning shot across the bow is often the only tactic one needs to take. In other words, sometimes government needs to be reminded of the power of the people in a free society.
    Government servants work to serve us, not to be our overlords. I honestly believe at times they forget that simple fact.
    When Mike and others fire the warning shot across the bow, it is to let the powers that be know that should they instigate some sort of coordinated attempt to rob citizens of their rights, there will be consequences that government may not wish to risk igniting.
    Despite the fact that the country is now paying for its prolonged process of dumbing down the citizenry, there are still millions of citizens who cherish and love their God-given liberties. And they are not about to allow rogue government agencies or agents rob them of those liberties.
    It is only reasonable to conclude that should government initiate the forceable removal of our firearms, places us, our families, and our property under threat, there are significant numbers of citizens who will respond with force–in self-defense.
    And this number would include some who work for government, including agents, teachers, lawyers, politicians, plumbers, construction workers,etc, who believe in liberty as much as we do.
    But it would not be the three percenters who would initiate such a horrible scenario. Government will make the first move unless the citizens remind government from time to time who is boss (the individual citizens), and that we are armed.
    Thus, if government wishes to avoid a total meltdown of our society, government, and way of life, then they had best never make that fateful first move.
    It is government that should fear the citizens, and not the other way around. THAT is the society the Founding Fathers established!

  24. CorbinKale: Apparently “Spare me your hyperbolic, soap-box preaching,” was unclear to you. Oh well – your most recent comment adequately exposed cowards comprising the “three percenter” movement, so you have successfully done yourself more harm than good.
    Yes, Mike is planning on starting a war. He is not content with simply getting the government agents off his house. No, he wants a country-embroiling, government-shattering, innocent-murdering revolution, all because he happens to be pissed at the status quo. His writings are very clear on the topic, and, even worse, he is threatening to make people fight for him. Neither of those situations are something I can abide, however, you seem to have been sucked into the merry fantasy with nary a whisper. Like I said before, you do not always know when you are deluding yourself…
    Oh, so now you are blaming the inactivity, cowardice, and general-purpose windbaggery shown by the “three percenters” on “prags” like me? Good grief. That would be bloody hilarious if it were not so patently pathetic. Be a man. Take responsibility for your actions. Confess to the world that you and the rest of your “three percenter” merry men have not done anything in the past because you did not care, or it was not directly affecting you, or it was not high enough on your priorities, or you really never meant to do anything anywise, or a combination of all of those and more. But blaming other people? That is just sad.
    Oh, the irony… What I am doing by the logical chain you are pointing out is indicating just how illogical the “three percenter” movement is – if that is hurting your head, than I suggest you seriously take a look at your own beliefs and motivations, especially in reference to the “three percenters” cause. The three percenters as a whole, and you as an individual, are hypocrites, and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that at the moment (unless you pause from your fomenting civil war long enough to invent and employ a time machine).
    And, finally, your cowardice rears its ugly litle head once again. Well, if you are going to “use” me, instead of taking ownership of your own words on your own weblog, I am afraid I am going to have to charge you for the privilege of posting here. This is my property, and people comment here at my discretion – I certainly have nothing against having conversations with people, but when those selfsame people admit to “using” me because they are too pansy-assed to start a weblog of their own, well, then, they are going to help pay for this one. I expect not to see any more comments from you until I have an email address to send the PayPal invoice to and money in hand, and if you do post, once I get back from work it will be moved into the moderation queue, to be removed once you decide to do your part.
    JT: You are obviously one of those childish little people who cannot get by in life without pointlessly and ineffectively demeaning other people just to inflate his own depressed and repressed ego. Kind of sad. Furthermore, you seem to be one of those people who simply has to have the last word in a conversation. Doubly sad. However, I can at least provide you that simple pleasure – considering you have brought nothing useful to the table in your multiple comments here (kind of like the “three percenter” movement as a whole), I will no longer be catering to you by responding. Post whatever you like – you will finally have the last word. Enjoy it.
    Chris: The concept of public support seems to be more-or-less lost on these fools… no revolution has ever succeeded without it, they do not have it, and they appear to have no plans whatsoever to procure it. It is almost as though they are intentionally dooming themselves to failure from the very start, and then they are revelling in that fate. It takes a twisted mind indeed to do that.
    I am vaguely amused that we both came to the same conclusion concerning the “line in the sand” obsession these misbegotten morons have, though – nothing more than a measurement contest. “Mine is farther out front than yours is, so mine is better!”
    Martyn: The problem with the “three percenter” movement is that they have been firing warning shots across the government’s bow for as long as they have existed, promsing that it is this point and no further. Well, guess what? Those points have come, passed, and are buried in time immemorial, and they did precisely squat. Simply put, they are, to a man, hypocrites. Worse, they are now little boys who cried wolf, only now they are intentionally damaging and delaying any hope we, as firearm owners, have of convincing the government and the rest of the American people that we are not all insurrectionist, tin-foil-wearing, backyard revolutionary jackasses. This fight never was one that could be won by force, and yet force is all the “three percenters” have ever brought to the table. That implies marked ignorance of the situation, marked stupidity, or a marked desire to hinder, not help.
    The government may eventually take a step that can only be responded to by force. However, you, me, and all of the “three percenters” are living, breathing humans (though I am not so sure about “JT” – he seems like one of those folks who would fail a Turing Test). If those “three percenters” decide to take the future into their own hands, if they decide to tear down the country around our ears simply because it is that time of the month, if they decide to destroy not only the country, but everything the Constitution stood for… that will be entirely on their heads. It would be their choice. Their decision. And their responsibility. And nothing will ever change that.

  25. What more can I add that the others haven’t already said?
    I do have a question for you though; what is it like to be a spineless jellyfish who stands for nothing?

  26. One more question; why do you not have any idea about the current state of the country you proclaim to love so much?
    The politicians have ALREADY torn the country down around our ears you simpering fool! In case you haven’t noticed, or been too busy slithering around on the floor, the government hasn’t paid any more than lip service to the Constitution for decades. You really are a shallow shell of a person, I do believe you are beyond redemption.

  27. “Three Percenters” are self-righteous, anarchist, egotistical, self-centered, solipsistic, incorrigible asses, and are appropriately full of shit.
    I am proud to stand with the Three Percenters.

  28. I’m noticing a real increase in the animosity level here between groups that supposedly share the same basic goals – protecting the rights of US citizens.
    I’m an Army Vet and have voted in every election since 1972. I write my representatives (and receive replies basically saying – “Screw you”), belong to the NRA and participate in local activities. Hasn’t seemed to help much when you see things like the recent SWAT raid on the Amish folks in Ohio. So I believe I understand, sort of, what the 3% idea is about and tend to support the idea.
    It’s obvious that the, work w/in the system thing isn’t cutting it, just look at the recent election. While I don’t see the 3%ers calling for a revolution, I can see the deterrence value in what they say.
    You all should be thinking more about working together to advance goals than doing the internet, Yar, Yar, Yar, thing and trading barbs.
    I’m to old and broke down to go out and fight, etc. But my doorstep really is my line. Sure, it’ll be a “suicide by SWAT” (Good line BTW) situation, but that’s just the way it is. What’d you figure, there’s about 1 million in that 3%? Think about how many there are that are really motivated enough to go banging in doors after they start getting whacked doing it. And how many folks are going to be motivated to support a 3% type after they see their old kindly neighbor, me, bagged and carried out for being a subversive?
    Having seen the general deterioration of our country and our freedoms in my lifetime, I’m afraid there ain’t much hope in working in or out of the system to really change where we’re headed. Sounds bad I know, but I’m not real optimistic anymore.
    Again, you all should quit bickering. It’s not gonna be the 3%ers that bring you into a conflict with the government. Uncle Sugar is gonna bring it to you and cross your personal line eventually. Better try to work together now while you can. God bless you all.

  29. Bill: Not having any context for your first question, I can only come to the conclusion that you are addressing it at the hypocritical “three percenters”. After all, for all of their bluster, bravado, and braggodocio, they certainly have never stood against any of the injustices of the past like they so vehemently promised they would, and I strongly doubt they ever will in the future. Personally, I would imagine such empty, hollow, meaingless, unfulfilled promises must weigh heavily about their necks, only to be eventually absorbed into the general-purpose repression they all seem to be suffering from. In short, it probably sucks to be them.
    However, your second question certainly shows more than sufficient context (buried somewhere inbetween your pathetically-crafted strawman, ad hominem name-calling, and baseless assumptions). Unfortunately, what you have successfully accomplished is not what you intended, but instead you have more than adequately illustrated the single largest fault with the entire concept of the “three percenter” movement – if the situation really was as bad as you seem to believe it is, and if the “three percenters” have promised to “kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty”, then where the frak were they? For that matter, where the frak are they now, if America is tumbling down around our ears?
    Oh. Right. Sitting behind their keyboards, writing hypocritical, inflammatory, useless, destructive screeds laced with comparisons between themselves and men who were far greater than they ever will be. They are stroking their egos with their hubris, convincing themselves of their own self-importance, and engaging in a style of mental masturbation that only misguided insurrectionists of their lacking caliber could perform.
    That is a shell of a man, looking to fill his emptiness with any self-inflating bit of propaganda he can imagine up. That is a sad existence indeed. That is a waste of a life.
    David: Fair enough. My opening comment still stands, and its validity has only been strengthened and bolstered by the actions and words of those “three percenters” on this comment thread and others. Wonderful friends you have, there.
    GrumpyUnk: While both the “three percenters” and the realists theoretically share the same ultimate goals, it is not so much their goals I am drawing offense at, it is their methodology, as I mentioned to Martyn earlier. What they are doing and what they are proposing to do is not helping. It is not helping within the system, it is not helping outside the system, it is not helping them, and it sure as hell is not helping those of us who are trying to put a rational, reasonable face on gun ownership. Firearm owners have been painted as nutcases and wanna-be revolutionaries for long enough that the public buys into that stereotype without really thinking about it, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that examples proving that stereotype really are not that hard to find.
    Workin within the system may not be improving the situation as fast as some people would like it to, but saying it is entirely a lost cause is simply foolish (I am not saying you are saying that, but I am saying some “three percenters” are). Take a look at Heller vs. DC. Hell, take a look at what transpired, just today, concerning concealed carry in national parks. Do you think that rule got changed because a bunch of self-important yahoos sat around, banged their chests, and growled menacingly? Not so much. That bit of rights-protecting activism took place within the system that is supposedly broken beyond repair… and, yet, strangely, it still seems to work.
    I would be perfectly fine with working with as many other people as I can to help protect and secure my personal rights… however, I find myself having a very hard time standing with those who would willingly and gleefully tear down and destroy that which they are supposedly protecting – America as a whole, her freedoms in their entirety, and the citizenry that makes her up.

  30. Thanks for your reply, Linoge. I think, maybe, the whole “willingly and gleefully tear down and destroy that which they are supposedly protecting -” thing may be an indication of where all this has gotten to. Unless I’m mistaken, MV hasn’t come off as Gleefully wanting to tear down anything. I’ll grant you that I didn’t pay much attention to this whole kerfuffle until just recently, but I have read a lot of MV’s stuff over the last year and calling for a revolution hasn’t really been what I’ve seen.
    My gut instinct here is that people just got their feelings hurt in all the name calling and their pride is getting in the way of common sense.
    Hell, I’ve never been accused of being the voice of reason, but it’s pretty easy to see that as long as you all(both sides) continue to squabble, the Shumers are gonna exploit that.
    So maybe it’s a good time for everyone to take a good deep breath, push your pride back in the, ol’ nut sack and reassess this logically. Just one old guys opinion. Thanks, Unk.

  31. WOW! This is truly like watching some of the cartoons my son watches. The main character just spouts gibberish and makes no sense what so ever. I do not even know where to start because he can not even make a logical stance. You call us blowhards and gasbags because we draw a line and take a stand and say we have gone far enough. Then you say what we are talking about is dangerous and seditious. Then you turn around and call us hypocrites for not doing the very thing you just called dangerous and seditious!
    Lets try this one more time now I will type slowly so it will sink in. It is not hypocritical to have placed your faith in the system and have that system pile compromise after compromise on you over a course of years so that you finally abandon all trust in that process. It’s not hypocritical to have voted time after time for politicians who really do have a love of liberty only to see them defeated time and time again by voters who only want to surrender their freedom so they can eat at the public trough. It is not hypocritical to look at the situation and realize that we have given and given and given. That we have lost more and more and more and the opposition has lost nothing and has given nothing to come to the conclusion that they will not stop. It is not hypocritical to have given up yard after yard and then finally when the bad guys are in the redzone to make a goal line stand. It’s not hypocritical to have reached that point and say NO MORE!
    You say we are hypocrites for doing these things. Well where were you? What have you done? If you support freedom and liberty then what have you done other than create a weblog? Talk about egotistical gasbagging! I don’t care where your personal line in the sand is or even if you have one but you have some real gal to get up on your dung heap and crow about those who have made a public stand. Real gal to profess that you know what Mike V really thinks and that he is really itching for a fight but then cluck and cluck at a commenter
    “You do not know me. You do not know my tactics. You do not know my reasoning for not disclosing whether or not I have a line or where it is if it exists. You do not know my priorities. You do not know when I would fight, or if I would fight, or what I would do were I to fight.”
    Your right we do not know you and you do not know Mike or us in general. What I do know is that you seem a little too caught up in psycho-analyzing the 3% to see that you are projecting your own faults onto us. You fill your comments with so much amateur psycho babble that you sound an awful lot like some kind of gun grabbing eurotard.

  32. grenadier1 sort of reinforces what I said above. Not picking on him, but all of this back and forth on any topic on the web is less civilized and over the top than it would be if we were sitting face to face. It’s the nature of the medium and that’s just how it is, but it allows the uncivilized escalation that just doesn’t happen (W/O alcohol anyway ;-}) in normal, day to day conversation.
    Again, not picking on you, grenadier1.

  33. From long experience in dealing with pricks like these, I think we can take the “3” in “3-Percenter” to be more like “.3” — they make the term “splinter group” appear generous.
    If ever the “End Times” come (as they prophesy), it won’t be over gun rights: it come as a result of property rights being massively abused.
    Mostly, these point-three percenters are bullshit artists. I met lots of their type in the Army, and almost without question, they were empty bags of hot air.
    And as for the “we’ll force other gun owners to…” nonsense: yeah, right. Like they’re the ONLY ones with guns who aren’t afraid to use them.
    Rather than provocation, we gun owners should get more gun owners into the general population: kids, women, minorities, whatever. It’s not as glamorous as bellowing empty threats of mayhem at the JBTs, but it’s more effective.
    And only a fool announces to his enemy where he’s going to make his last stand, so leave off the “line in the sand” crap. Let the government find out for themselves on which hill you choose to die.
    And for the inevitable insults and calumny which will no doubt follow from these shit-eaters: bite me. I was standing up to armed policemen before most of you twerps were born, where there was NO constitution to protect me.
    Look down the shotgun barrel held by a feral Afrikaner policeman sometime, and see how brave you are then.
    Bunch of Camo Barbie commandos. Your kind makes me sick.

  34. Grenadier1: Just like CorbinKale, you cannot seem to wrap your head around the expression of the many faults of the “three percenters” – not that I blame you. Their stances are remarkably self-contradictory, inherently hypocritical, and logically flawed, and seeing that all written expressed and written down all at once is going to throw anyone’s brain for a loop. But I am not the one coming up with this half-baked nonsense – I am only calling it as I see it.
    It does not matter where I was, Grenadier1. I am not the one beating my chest, puffing up my ego, drawing lines in the sand, and daring the government to cross them. I am not the one threatening to “kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty”, and then never having the nerve, balls, or downright courage to follow through on my word. I am not the one making empty, hollow, meaningless promises, failing to fulfill them, and then making them all over again and expecting people to take me seriously.
    No, all that is straight out of the “three percenter” playbook, and all of it is pathetically pitiable.
    Oh, and the “I know you are, but what am I?” thing got old in, like, third grade… grow up already.
    GrumpyUnk: I have spent a fair bit of time reading through Mike’s various meandering ramblings, and he may not be gleeful about his supposedly impending revolution, but he damned well is itching for a fight. That, in and of itself, implies an enthusiasm for the bloodshed involved, and that is something I simply cannot stomach.
    Kim: Woah. My little rant rated a comment from Kim Du Toit. Well ain’t that somethin’.
    I really have nothing I can add to your comment, so I think I will just stick to thanking you for it, and expressing my regrets at your retirement from the weblogging scene. That said, enjoy having that much time free (or at least opened up for other pursuits) to you again!

  35. wrapping up

    Well, thanks to me poking a hornet’s nest, and the hornets reacting exactly as expected (basically, like the moronic miscreants they are), I have accomplished three interesting things: First, I have set a new record for comments-per-post, and that reco…

  36. Well GrumpyUnk I don’t take offense to anything you have said so don’t sweat it. You seem to be walking the middle ground here and that’s respectable.
    Yes your rant was half baked nonsense. It is pointless to continue a discussion with someone who completely misses the irony of his own methods in relation to his critique. Tell us again what you have done and are doing to prevent the line being drawn behind you. Tell us what political options that have worked so well in the past should be used again. Tell us just how you will work to not only hold the political ground but gain more. Tell us why your methods are going to work THIS time. Tell us why THIS time things will be different and we will win back rights lost not just federally but at the state and local level.
    Go on….RIGHT didn’t think I would hear anything other than name calling and verbal masturbation. Good day!

  37. Grenadier1:You just do not get it, do you? The irony is not in my methodology, the irony, logical disconnect, and general-purpose stupidity is in the methodology of the insurrectionists. They are hypocritical (and cowards, and pathetic, and pitiable, and a whole host of other things) for not following through on their promises in the past, and they are destructively and intentionally damaging any hope we have of convincing the American populace to support our causes. Those two concepts are far from contradictory, and, in fact, play right into each other.
    Once again, it does not matter what I have or have not done – I am not the one threatening to not only take my marbles and go home, but also break everyone else’s marbles out of spite. I am not the one who is threatening pointless and ineffective violence simply because I am upset. I am not the one violently reacting to a situation instead of rationally responding to it. Nope, those attributes are all aspects of the insurrectionist movement, and I damn well think it is high time for them to answer for them, and explain how they think violence is going to work.
    But they cannot. They have no plan short of lying about “kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty”. They have no ultimate goals (besides inflating their own pathetic egos, that is), they have no intentions after they expend their violent tendencies… they have no future. And that is just sad.
    Regardless, if you have to ask what we have accomplished by playing in the system, you have either been living in a cave for the past decade, or are mentally deficient in some manner, either or both of which appears to be highly probable for any “three percenter”.

  38. the last word

    Alright, so this is going to be my last post on the topic of the insurrectionists. While doing dishes this morning, I had a small stroke of inspiration. Yes, it did hurt, and yes, I get ideas doing the strangest…

  39. my line in the sand is when they come after Mike V for seditious scribbling. 20 years from now he will be another Bill Ayers, and just as awe-inspiring.
    Absolved, my Arse.

  40. “Three Percenters” are self-righteous, anarchist, egotistical, self-centered, solipsistic, incorrigible asses, and are appropriately full of shit.”
    I am proud to stand with the Three Percenters too.

  41. in review

    All statistics courtesy of Google Analytics (And thus must be taken with a grain of salt, given that they do not mesh with my other three statistics-tracking systems. Google Analytics is only being used in this instance due to the…

  42. insect ruins riot

    (I was initially going to leave this post as a comment over at the instigating post, but the more I thought about it, the larger it got, to the point where I thought it merited a full-blown response.) A while…

Comments are closed.