On Friday’s quote of the day, in the comments section, RNS reader Grumpy Old Ham said he wanted to talk about something Rivrdog said there on the subject of “GunBlogging”. He suggested Paratus, RD’s other blog, but willing to do it here.
So let’s talk this out.
I gun blog for a couple reasons, neither of which are to be a braggart.
First up is the relationships that are created and the knowledge shared with fellow firearms owners. Within six months of when I first started blogging I hosted my first “Blogger Blastorama”. Noted attendees were Raging Dave of Four Right Wing Wackos fame, Headmistress SondraK and JR from Knowledge is Power, and Mollbot from the now defunct Morpholine blog.
We all met in the burg of Enumclaw, WA and went out near the Mt. Rainier National Park and shot the hell out of two truckloads of pumpkins. We had, quite literally, a blast and the elk ate well after we left.
After that, I would help arrange other Blogger Blastoramas on a monthly basis, stretching from Everett, WA to Portland, OR. Since then, I’ve been working too many hours at night to be able to get up the energy to do more than a couple a year, and even then, I don’t always get a lot of takers due to lower site traffic numbers and blog-folks leaving the area.
But in that year and a half of monthly shooting meet-ups, not only did I have loads of fun, but I can think of over two dozen firearms bought by various Blastorama attendees (including SondraK’s first), and at least eight new shooters off the top of my head.
Well worth the time, the effort and the exposure of myself as an internet gunnie.
I don’t post about the firearms I own to try and deter anyone I piss off from a physical attack. If they have half a brain, they’ll just arm themselves prior to meeting me at their selected location and we’ll test skill-sets.
As for the idea of a gov’t agency using my postings here as knowledge/a reason to search/confiscate, I’m not really worried about that either. Here is a little secret about Washington State: When you buy a pistol at an FFL here, you ARE essentially registering it (does not pertain to long guns). They tie your newly purchased firearm to you driver’s license and/or CCW permit and any traffic officer can ask his dispatcher about what guns you may have in the car (or look it up by themselves if they have an on-board laptop). I have spoken to the CCRKBA, they know about this and have been rebuffed in their attempts to stop it.
The state knows I own firearms. I am probably on whatever “List” they may have, but I have an Ace in the Hole they don’t know about and which I won’t discuss here. I have also, as a youngin, lived through a pair of raids on my father’s house by the BATFE. When I was in my early 20’s, in the wake of the OKC bombing, I was questioned, along with the rest of the practical pistol competition team I was in at the time, about us being “a militia”. While these anecdotes are entertaining, with one of them ending quite humorously, they are also things I am not willing to talk about here beyond these mentions.
Both of these experiences have convinced me that not only are our federal agencies full of raging gun bigots, but that I needed to take steps so as to not get surprised again. I do this partly by being miles above board in any and all dealings with firearms and by not joining shooting clubs run by half-hearted pantywaisted haters of all shooting disciplines except for silhouette and skeet. While I wouldn’t put it past a member of one of the alphabet agencies to lie/falsify evidence, I do know that they would have to work really hard at it in my case.
Basically what I’m saying is that unless you gunblog about illegal modifications or wanting to kill someone, gunblogging gives the gov’t little to no more information than they already have, at least in my experience.
A very positive product of gunblogging is that “They” know that there are hundreds of vocal gun-owning bloggers out there, talking amongst themselves and bringing new folks into the fold. Not “angry” gun owners and not “militiamen”. And I have no doubt in my mind that that scares the piss out of those looking in.
Now, what are your thoughts/questions/concerns/favorite hummous recipies?
The problem for us gunbloggers is simple: Because we are staunch advocates for the Second, we probably have less leeway with the First.
Both you and I can go into ultra-lefty sites with which we are familiar, and find in their archives posts which advocate violent change in our government, or violence against us rightys, businesses, etc. Those bloggers or commenters may or may not be on anyone’s list as a potential subversive.
However, let ONE gunblogger suggest a scenario where societal breakdown might require violence for the protection of the Constitution, and in such a post, actually NAME targets, and that gunblogger is in a field of hurt.
If if a group of gunbloggers get together and call themselves a “militia”, or even suggest that they are part of the Unorganized Militia that Federal Law permits and REQUIRES, that group is in a field of hurt.
My point is that planning for the (to me) inevitable conflict that accompanies societal breakdown is a good thing. In this nation, we are free to plan and equip, within the law, for such events. THE FACT THAT SOCIETAL BREAKDOWN COULD BE INITIATED FROM WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT should be part of our planning.
But, we can’t talk about it openly, because if we do, our planning could be labeled as subversive to the government.
There is a legal concept at work here. I think of it as vague and Unconstitutional, but in my former profession of Law Enforcement, I saw it used many times to get search warrants signed by judges so as to permit forcible entry onto premises where criminals were supposed to be operating from. That concept is called “substantial step”, and it supposedly considers the First Amendment, and where it ends and where criminality begins. If a person talks about crimes to another person, that’s OK, but when the talk progresses to a “substantial step” towards the commission of a crime, then a criminal conspiracy has begun.
The “substantial step” could be something as innocuous as for example, as a burglar acquiring a ladder. For us, it would be the act of naming specific people as being the ones who would likely lead a direct attack on the Constitution. We’ve already taken the “substantial” (but legal) steps of acquiring arms (for purposes within the Second), talking to each other about what constitutes societal and Constitutional breakdown, and forming plans to deal effectively with the resulting conflict. So, in the eyes of the gummint, all we have to do is name names, and we have crossed the line.
Our planning for this oncoming conflict is incomplete if we don’t name names. That’s simply a matter of gathering intelligence, which any good combat leader must do to be successful.
Aha! You say. “Combat leader” is the thing, Rivrdog. If you just didn’t call yourself a “combat leader” or the conflict we may have to engage in “combat”, then you COULD be just like IndyMedia and name names.
Does this issue really just boil down to semantics?
I doubt it. Those who want to toss out the Constitution, and who have taken a “substantial step” towards doing so by referring to it as a “living document”, which for “living” may be substituted “changing” or “evolving” or more accurately, a “we’ll fill in the blanks document” fear us. They fear us more than anything else, because we are the ones who can stop them. We are the ONLY ones who can stop them.
They know it, we know it, and they know that we know it.
Whoever among us fails to believe that and take it into account will be among the first that the government comes for when they decide to remove the threat to their plans.
So, do Federal authorities take gunbloggers more seriously because of our arms, or because the Leftist advocates are that ridiculous?
I have asked myself and friends a few questions for some time, “when is it too much, how much violation is enough and what constitutes The Line?” Is it when the Second becomes subject to Leftist interpitation, or when Second becomes a historical subject in school? Maybe it’s when the State of Mass. forcibly disarms its populace.
I am looking for a defining point, is it: if they ask me for my arms (for the sake of the children!), demand my arms (for the common good) or take my arms (for my own good)?
Yes, I’m looking for that defining point too, Petey, but unlike some, I intend to rationally identify that point in advance, and when it arrives (notice I did not say “if”), I will be ahead of the operation, and they will get neither my old ass nor my guns.
I think that the defining point will be fairly obvious, but it will also be too late for many to save their guns, and it could get messy when those who have not prepared for that point decide to resist the sudden change. For resistance to a national gun-grab to succeed, it has to be smart resistance, not the Waco style of resistance.
I want to be able to resist in my own time and way, and that means knowing when the point is coming, and moving guns physically. Every military has plans for dispersal of assets to prevent one pre-emptive strike from crippling operations or supply. That’s a simple idea. We gun owners must get used to the idea of dispersal also.
If dispersal is properly organized, the government might delay or refuse to order seizure, since they couldn’t get enough guns in their initial grab to make a difference, and then the resistance would be too much for them to face. If we permit registration schemes, or fail to insist that instant purchase checks be destroyed, then we put pressure on ourselves that doesn’t need to happen.
To me, the best way to have enough firearms when it counts is to have enough sets of them, dispersed, so that they can never all be seized. I’m working towards that goal personally, but advocating it and helping others plan for it will make me the nail that sticks up, and we all know what happens to the nail that sticks up.
So, how do we counter the coming anti-gun government operations besides with dispersal?
One of the first things we must do is communications security, or ComSec as the military knows it. The objective of ComSec is to prevent the enemy from being able to gain useful intelligence about your dispositions or plans if they intercept your communications.
One thing that I’ve come across in my ComSec research is keywords. Keywords keep coming up, everybody talks about them, and that is how the NSA counter-terror email monitors work. For example, we use the words “gun”, “Rifle, “Firearm” a lot. If we add the word “buy” to one of those keywords, the communication is probably about a gun purchase. If we add the word “militia” or the word “resist” or “Second Amendment”, then the message is almost sure to be a gunblogger communication. A keyword interceptor will pick all those messages out.
There are two ways to defeat those interceptors. The first is to use coded words, but if the analysis is sophisticated enough, it can pick out the code phrases. The other way is to use the keywords in EVERY communication. The program will be overloaded when it picks out too many communications to monitor. All the program is, is a device to winnow down suspect communications to the level where agents can have few enough of them to read and act upon. If there are too many messages for agents to analyze, they will not use the resource as it requires too much effort for the chance of making one bust.
So, for keywords at least, there’s a good argument to both decrease and increase gunblogging.
Let’s keep this discussion going.
Here in California, the state knows about every firearm I’ve purchased. As far as I’m concerned, should the public tide turn against gun ownership to the point that gun confiscation becomes a reality, I’ll join ’em wholeheartedly. Yep, I’ll join the anti-gun mania sweeping the nation big time — to the point that I’ll just destroy every gun I own right there and then, no government action necessary. Yes, Officer, I took out my hacksaw and cut every one of ’em into six-inch pieces, and tossed ’em all in the trash. Two weeks ago today, that was. My wife saw me do it, just ask her. They’re all gone, no guns here!
Oh, that vat of Cosmoline? Yeah, I use that to keep the foundation anchors rust-free. It’s earthquake country here, you know.
Around here in the MidWest, most guys try to keep a couple of PVC pipes and caps on hand “just in case”. But the idea of actually having to go and dig is the hardest part for me. “But….But….its my favorite!”
A fence post-hole digger should do the trick. It would really suck if I accidentally buried an sks or three, lotsa ammo, etc in a wooded private property.
In the same way, it would suck if you were to say, “redecorate” a room and “lose” a shrinkwrapped package in the wall.
Or both!
With the current affordability of yugo sks’s & ammo, if you have some money it might be worth considering.
I very much despise the lies that were told during this election such as “gun control is off the table” and “we’re blue dog dems, we’re not going to take away your guns”. It will prove to be BS.
On the topic of the if or when argument, I fully believe it’s “when”, but I think having reasonable people talk about it makes it harder to demonize.
I’ve said this a couple times in relation to the topic of firearm confiscation: I do not think that firearms will see outright confiscation. There might be stupid people, but I do not think they’re that stupid.
No, instead I think they’ll either try to put more regulartory roadblocks in the way of purchasing and importing firearms – similar to the AWB and importation Bush Sr put into place, but more covert, as trailers to other bills. That’ll be their first step.
But then they’ll also cut backwards, with the same sword: they’ll make ammunition aquisition substantially more difficult and more expensive. They’ll cut down the level of production at the military plants, or maybe they’ll pass a law saying that federal munitions companies (like Lake City) can not produce ammunition or ammunition components to be sold both to the government and civilian markets. Basically, fascism at work. If LC doesn’t capitulate, surely another company will pop up to fill the vacuum; in the meantime, the ‘commercial’ companies will be regulated (maybe via the EPA due to lead) and taxed (through federal-producer-only incentives) out of existance.
And they’re additionally aided in these efforts if one lone gunman – like the beltway sniper – were to perpetrate a crime in similar fashion. Someone shot in a bank robbery in a ‘spray’ of bullets? Why, they’ll make ammunition acquisition more difficult.
In short: learning how to load your own ammo, and possibly a ‘ammunition brass and bullet cottage industry’ might be pertinent. This isn’t the Revolutionary War, where in addition to arms only powder, patch and ball are necessary: no, we need precision brass cartridges, primers, smokeless powder, and compound-element bullets – all of which are what might be considered “fairly difficult” to produce on their own.