I didn’t do as much blogging this weekend and yesterday as I normally would have. I had extra things to do at work the last few days. Plus I went out to the Boomershoot range and played in the dirt (pictures to follow) all day on Saturday.
At work yesterday afternoon I gave a short presentation and demo (actually I had Gang do the demo since his demo was completed and mine wasn’t) despite mangling a few sentences got laughs and applause at all the right spots and I should be able to give blogging a little more time tonight.
I really want to say something about “Prags” v. “threepers”. It appears I accidently lit a match near a powder keg with this post (see here and here). Maybe late tonight I’ll have something…
I’m a bit lost. What is a “prag”?
+1, I was going to ask the same thing.
I looked it up on Urban Dictionary and got an idea, but they might not be the same….
A pragmatist. In the present context it refers to the 2nd Amendment defenders that are willing to settle for incremental political gains rather than a complete and total victory.
In a nutshell (no puns intended), and someone correct me if I misrepresent either side, the “Prags” believe we can and, at this time, must be satisfied with a long time scale plans to regain the rights that have been infringed upon. The “Threepers” believe the political process is too slow and unreliable and that the time for armed resistance is immiment and all haste should be made in preparing for the conflict.
I’ll try to put my thoughts on the subject into words later tonight.
Um, no, you didn’t ignite anything. It was the comments that did, followed by first Caleb and now Sebastian kicking over an anthill that wasn’t bothering anyone.
As much as I enjoy reading your stuff, I cannot imagine that you’ll break any new ground here. This has pretty much been hashed out over the last year, and the upshot is that folks disagree with one another on some stuff, and that’s not likely to change, although you’re welcome to try.
The “prag” side, unlike what you wrote above, believes that incremental advances are the *only* way to accomplish our goals, and anything that might upset that applecart is bad. Since it seems that folks who get elected to office completely forget the word “repeal”, there’s only so much that can be done pragmatically.
Knocking the rougher edges off a bad law still leaves most of a bad law still in place. Not needing to show ID to buy a box of .22LR is great, but I still have to fill out a 4473 and submit to a background check in order to buy the 10/22 that the ammo goes in.
The 3per view, despite what might be said otherwise, states No More. It doesn’t really say much about the laws currently in place, other than the normal grousing that we all share, but it *does* say that no more gun control laws will be tolerated. It also points out the basic foolishness of further restricting people who already have guns. Having the means of resistance immediately to hand has a qualitatively different effect than say, folks who think the DWI/anti-hate speech/anti-drug laws go too far.
Joe,
Peter’s summary is the more accurate one. I would add that the prag side puts most of it’s emphasis on the “don’t upset the apple cart” part. The phrase they were bandying about a while back was “Don’t scare the white people”. This goes beyond just not showing up at public meetings in camo and being polite. They generally frown on open carry and absolutely go ballistic at any mention of drawing a line in the sand and pointing out the consequences of crossing it, as that makes the white people uncomfortable, and is, therefore, not very pragmatic. They like to be respectable and are a little embarrassed at the people who are shouting, metaphorically, at least, “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.”
It’s nice to read the threeper side that says that gun control is wrong – morally wrong – and here’s why. Then – unequivocally and unapologetically – say that more of it won’t be tolerated. That if more laws are passed they will be ignored, and any attempt to force compliance with violence will be met with violence. After all, they won’t stop passing the laws if all they’re afraid of is reading another harshly worded letter to the editor.
I think both approaches are needed.
Also, while they like to make the point that they are against gun control, they seem unwilling to say it’s wrong, just that it won’t work, and so it would be great if they were allowed to keep their guns. This leaves the moral high ground to the gun control side and morality always wins. For the antis, if having guns is wrong then they must be abolished. Even if it won’t work they must try. Just like the religious folks think drugs and alcohol must be banned even though it won’t work – in their minds, it’s the right thing to do.
–James
Look, if you want to point fingers, point them at me. Phelps said that he’d look sideways at someone wearing a Blackwater hat because he (phelps) is a Threeper; which kicked off an idle musing on my part which I posted on my blag.
Then the butthurtitude commenced at full force as it often does; because if Mike Vanderboegh is one thing, it’s a lover of clownish antics.
Caleb, it is seldom (and this is not an exception) that I point fingers while in a semi-friendly camp. I prefer to figure out and articulate a path for future behavior.
No worries Joe, I was talking to Peter.
Can I be a Threeper? I remember how to do the Boy Scout Sign and the Boy Scout Salute.
(Three fingers for each; I think it’s funny)
here’s the argument in a nutshell, and a very apt word that is, “nutshell”, I mean.
A prag is someone like Sebastian the eternally melting snowflake. Of course he is melting the heat generated by a principled stand is too hot for him to handle, so he melts to meaninglessness.
It was Sebastian who accused, uh huh, accused, one more time, “ACCUSED”, those of us who cite the constitution and especially the second amendment as the proper stance as regards the right to keep and bear arms as being “principles freaks”. His words, not mine. Who can say anything good about a man who labels those with principles as freaks?
Who among us is so stupid as to believe a man such as that can be trusted? Who among us is so stupid as to believe any of his adherents are trustworthy?
I cannot tell any of you how to think, but I can damn sure tell when you don’t bother to think.