Not helpful

This sort of thing is not helpful to the cause of gun rights (found on a towel dispenser in a bathroom). If this particular politician was signing orders to put people in cattle cars to send them to the “camps” then sure that would be appropriate. But we aren’t anywhere close to that.


When Alan Gura spent time with a bunch of gun bloggers at the NRA Convention last May I asked him what bloggers could do to help the civil rights war. He said (paraphrased), “Make guns fun. Don’t bring up or associate with Threepers. It scares people.”


I’ve elaborated on this sort of thing before and don’t see a need to elaborate further at this time.

17 thoughts on “Not helpful

  1. “If this particular politician was signing orders to put people in cattle cars to send them to the “camps” then sure that would be appropriate. But we aren’t anywhere close to that.”

    This is comical coming from the Jews In the Attic guy. A little consistency, maybe?

  2. As much as I respect Gura, I disagree with this statement. The 3pers are much like the open carriers. We each serve our purpose. Guys that open carry often scare people too, but I’d certainly not tell someone not to open carry in fear of hurting gun rights. The 3pers, while at times are (very) annoying, are good at forcing the government’s hand, exposing its true face.

    We talk about the government showing their true colors with events like Waco and Ruby Ridge, but without the cult leader in Koresh or the White Seperatist in Weaver, we’d never have those incidents to show the world. I’m not saying 3pers are at all like cultists or anything, only that we also need those who aren’t working in the mainstream.

  3. wlp,

    I think you missed one of my main points in my Jeepers Threepers post. Either do it or don’t. Don’t advertise your inclination.

    The Inconvenience,

    I see a significant difference between the Threepers and open carriers. Open carry is generally legal and, from a strictly rational viewpoint, non-threatening and non-violent unless there is an immediate threat to innocent life. While open carry does scare some people I don’t see a problem with that when the percentage of the local population scared is sufficiently small. Humans are generally herd animals and if main herd isn’t frightened then those that are frightened they will soon become desensitized (see also my post Open Carry as political statement). I am of the opinion that advocating violent action which a large majority of the population is opposed to is counter productive. I believe the Threeper position falls into this category.

    Roberta X,

    Yes. They can certainly serve a purpose. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it is the best use of talent and resources.

  4. Come on Joe, I think it can safely be said that the only reason she and the NDSWP members haven’t started putting a lot the people opposed to their sovietization of the U.S. in those cars or the equivalents is because they havn’t figured out how to do the deed without a lot of them dying.

  5. I think that is a reasonable hypothesis but even if there was more evidence to support it the threshold to start shooting has not been reached. And if it is reached you do it. You don’t advertise your intentions.

  6. Joe, I think it’s sick and paranoid and uncivilized to even talk about the “threshold.” Your take on it is just a step or two behind emdfl.

    Plus, although you denounce it, your linking to that sick picture does plenty to disseminate it.

  7. Mikey, do you ever wonder why no one takes “uncivilized” seriously anymore?

    and plus when leftists link up pics of right-wing idiocy as they denounce it, they’re disseminating it too, uh oh, looks like your analogy just got turned on its head.

  8. I generally find things like that (also: Terrorist Hunting Permits) to be acceptable inside jokes (much like the jokes sysadmins have for users, and vice versa, and the kinds of jokes the enlisted folks used to have for us officers), but not something that is generally suitable for common consumption.

    As for the Threepers, I have reached the point where I would not trust them to do a bloody thing when their oh-so-very-important LINE was crossed, which somewhat ruins their entire utility in my eyes…

    Plus, although you denounce it, your linking to that sick picture does plenty to disseminate it.

    This is a funny comment from an individual who flies off the handle any time anyone removes the link from his commenter username. Which way do you want it, Sparky? Is linking “polite and courteous”, or is it disseminating sick things?

    Also, what about that offer I made you?

    (I hope that when your blogging software says it makes a note of a commenting error, it actually does so, Joe… Seems like every other comment I leave flakes out, and I have to retype the whole thing.)

  9. Interesting, isn’t it, Mikey, that our side can have “sick and paranoid and uncivilized” people talking about thresholds——

    ——and for all that, the American people still side with us 3-to-1.

    You guys must be really repulsive to the average voter.

  10. As a Democrat, I find these kinds of things offensive because they always seem like the threat to overturn a legal election with violence. (And before anyone says “But Hillary wasn’t elected,” she’s part of this Administration.)

  11. ubu52,

    So what about when the left repeatedly threatened and orgiastically fantasized about killing the former members of the executive branch? Compare the Hillary sticker to the photos from protests by those supposedly peace-loving progressives in NYC and SF:

    http://tinyurl.com/m42pug

    Gee, if you were in the Secret Service and only had the resources to investigate one thing at a time, which threat would seem most credible?

    A sticker plastered on a towel dispenser in a men’s bathroom, or people hanging/burning the image of a sitting president in effigy in the streets?

    (Oh, wait. You’re a Democrat. I already know the answer.)

  12. ubu52,

    A “legal election” is not sufficient justification to rule out the use of violence to remove a tyrant. Adolf Hitler was “legally elected”. And what of Saddam Hussein and dozens of others who were “elected”? And once in power their actions are almost always backed by courts. They are the law.

    The proper criteria is more complex. I think of it in terms similar to personal defense. Does the “tyrant” have the means, opportunity and intent to cause permanent injury or death to human rights in their political jurisdiction? If so then perhaps violence is appropriate. See also my essay here.

    mikeb302000,

    We both realize you are not here for the hunting but I’ll indulge your masochistic desires for a moment.

    You are wrong. The founding of this nation was based upon the premise that we have an obligation to overthrow tyrants.

    If you don’t like that then perhaps you should move to some other nation. Oh! That’s right. You already did.

  13. Linoge,

    I don’t get notice of the errors unless I inspect the log files which I seldom do. The blog authors might get notified but I haven’t looked into the source code to find out.

    What I do is always make a copy in my clipboard before pushing the “Save Comment” button. I think it happens less often when I turn off the Captcha. But there were so many spam comments I had to turn it back on the other day.

    I really should look into upgrading the software. I’m sure there is a new version out by now.

  14. Mr. Vandebough does what he does in an attempt to get those inside Government to think about consequences when they start planning another Waco style event, so that we won’t have to shoot the bastards.
    In that, I believe he has been successful, at least so far.
    Nobody I know really wants the current decades long cultural cold war to go hot, but it will if we don’t make it absolutely clear to those who would be on the Government’s side that we are willing to fight one.

    The sticker linked to by Joe is not helpful to either threepers’ or prags’ cause, though. Such things need to be held close to the vest. You don’t want to give the bootlickers on the statist side a ready made talking point that they can use to marginalize people. They do that very well, as those women accusing Clinton of sexual crimes in the 90s found out.

  15. “Why Boomershoot” doesn’t appear to be subtle. Rather, it’s pretty clear and to the point.

    And yes; one of the points, if not the main point, of the second amendment, stated in no uncertain terms, was to act as a deterrent to those who would contemplate usurpation of human rights. The tyrants get it perfectly well, too. That’s why they have to demonize us.

    That being the case, I say there’s little to be gained from worrying overmuch about how we’re going to be demonized. They’ll do it regardless.

    As for the threshold; the American Revolution didn’t go hot until there after much pain, suffering and militancy from the mother country. The Britts fired first, and on several occasions, much as it will be the next time ’round. That’s your threshold. It’s a last resort, but there it is. We have a LOT of political solutions to try first.

Comments are closed.