Access to a computer will be limited for the next week. Posting will be as I can, if I can.
Please understand if I don't respond to emails.
Hey, there's plenty of old stuff on this site to keep occupied with. Take a tour of the archives.
Friday, May 04, 2007
"I Got Mine"
The Secret Service said Thursday that Democratic Sen. Barack Obama was being placed under its protection, the earliest ever for a presidential candidate.And for the rest of us who don't have 'round-the-clock taxcow-funded Secret Service protection?
What's that two-word phrase that starts with "F" and ends with "you"? Oh well, I'm certain he'll make sure his security detail doesn't carry any of those semiautomatic bullet hose no-good-for hunting weapons of war that he thinks should be withheld from "We the People."
Ya think?
I found our old Citizens of America ad where I portrayed just such a senator (have you ever seen a bigger ham outside of a Honeybaked store?)--it's on Wayback Machine, so it takes the devil's own time to load...(By the way, don't send any checks as the ad requests--COA is no longer among the living.)
Selective Enforcement
The FBI said Thursday it would open a civil rights inquiry into officers' conduct.So where is the FBI investigation on whether the unalienable Constitutional rights of gun owners are being violated--on a daily basis--in California and throughout the Republic?
The preliminary inquiry seeks to determine "whether the civil rights of protesters taking part in the May 1st immigration rally were violated," according to an FBI news release.
Answering Adevărul
Since the folks at Adevărul have not seen fit to post the story containing my responses to their questions, I'm just going to include the entire exchange here:
Initial Contact:
Dear Mr. Codrea,
My name is Cristian Lupsa and I am a reporter on the foreign desk of Adevarul (www.adevarulonline.ro), a nationally-distributed daily newspaper in Romania.
A colleague of mine and I are currently researching and reporting a piece on gun culture and gun debate in the United States. European media has had various reactions following the Virginia Tech shootings, but few have taken the extra step of explaining all sides of the debate along with existing legislation and the context surrounding America's relationship with guns.
We'd much appreciate it if you had time to answer a few questions (which I've included below), either via e-mail of phone if it's more convenient for you. Our deadline is Wednesday and it'd be great if you could find a few minutes. Readers in Romania would benefit greatly from direct input on this matter.
My Reply:
Hello Mr. Lupsa,
See interlineated responses. I didn't know how much you wanted, so I probably included much more than you need. I'd appreciate a link to the finished article.
Thank you for considering "the other side." Please let me know if you need any further information or clarification.
Q&A:
- What do you think are some issues/topics that are overlooked when the world starts discussing and opining on America's relationship with guns in the aftermath of a tragedy such as the one at Virginia Tech?
The single most overlooked issue in this story is that Virginia Tech bans guns from its campus--even if a person can otherwise lawfully carry a concealed weapon. Past press statements from their spokesman, Associate VP of University Relations Larry Hincker, ridiculed reasoned pleas to end this prohibition, and lauded the demise of legislation that would have done that. In light of the total failure of authorities to protect students and faculty who are forbidden from protecting themselves, one must ask why major media outlets have almost universally omitted this information from their reporting.
Another big problem, both for European observers of the American scene and for our own populace, is that most people get their information about guns from a media that is overwhelmingly hostile to guns, rather than through personal experience. So when they are asked if they think gun control laws should be stricter, many will have no idea as to the current level of restrictions, of the inevitable failure of such laws to prevent societal violence, and of the credible, peer-reviewed studies showing guns in private hands save lives.
People who don't know about these things, or who are unfamiliar with and afraid of guns, are susceptible to hyperbole and misrepresentation. And unfortunately, people who react emotionally, rather than with knowledge and deliberation, make up much of the voter base for those who exploit them to ban guns.
- You write a popular blog supporting the right to bear arms. Could you summarize for an international audience the main tenants of the pro-gun position? Feel free to also address the most frequent charges from gun-control advocates.
The position of Second Amendment supporters is no more complicated than this: Each of us has a right not to be hurt by someone else, and if someone tries to hurt us, we have a right to protect ourselves. But we cannot effectively protect ourselves without the possessing the means of defense.
The most frequent charge is that guns are responsible for causing death. Left unexplored are the lives saved using a gun, the acts of violence deterred where the mere presence of a gun discourages an attack.
Look at the membership of the NRA, estimated at up to 4 million people. You will not find a more heavily armed yet law-abiding group of individuals on the planet.
If gun control worked, you'd expect places with the most restrictive laws, America's urban areas, to show the greatest benefit from severe restrictions. Yet these are invariably the most violent and dangerous places in our country. Is it any wonder, when the good people are forbidden by law to possess the means of defense? Yet such laws do not deter the bad people. Who would expect someone so debased they would rob or kill another human being to pause and consider that he'd better not violate a gun control law? It's not coincidence that mass murderers invariably select "gun free" zones, where they are guaranteed their prey won't be able to shoot back.
- When the Virginia Tech shootings happened, you wrote on your blog: "The renewed cries for disarming you and me will push this debate into a level of hysteria and demands that will be unlike anything we have yet encountered. This will be a catalyst. Count on it." What do you think will happen and how might this debate be different from others--such as the one following Columbine?
A primary difference between the present and the Columbine incident is we now have a case before the courts (Parker v District of Columbia) that has confirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. So now, in addition to calling for a ban on gun ownership, citizen disarmament proponents are calling for repealing the Second Amendment. Seeing as how, for years, they've asserted it was only intended as a collective right of states to train and equip their militias, this new tack seems particularly disingenuous--if the 2nd meant what they've been telling us it does, there would be no such need.
Right now we're seeing much posturing, hearing a lot of noise. Translating this into further federal edicts may be more problematic, with a major election approaching--we've seen Republican politicians with anti-gun records like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney now cozying up to gun owners and making pro-gun overtures.
Still, we also see renewed efforts, such as Carolyn McCarthy's resurrection of the federal ban on semiautomatic firearms, and even the NRA teaming up with her to expand the federal background check. We also see new state level bans going after semiautos, .50 caliber rifles, and a host of other restrictions that will impact lawful gun owners but won't make a bit of difference to evil men who have no intention of following any law.
As we related in a previous post, the paper did print the story last Friday--it's just that they never posted it to their website. Naturally, if a link ever shows up, I'll include it here.
Initial Contact:
Dear Mr. Codrea,
My name is Cristian Lupsa and I am a reporter on the foreign desk of Adevarul (www.adevarulonline.ro), a nationally-distributed daily newspaper in Romania.
A colleague of mine and I are currently researching and reporting a piece on gun culture and gun debate in the United States. European media has had various reactions following the Virginia Tech shootings, but few have taken the extra step of explaining all sides of the debate along with existing legislation and the context surrounding America's relationship with guns.
We'd much appreciate it if you had time to answer a few questions (which I've included below), either via e-mail of phone if it's more convenient for you. Our deadline is Wednesday and it'd be great if you could find a few minutes. Readers in Romania would benefit greatly from direct input on this matter.
My Reply:
Hello Mr. Lupsa,
See interlineated responses. I didn't know how much you wanted, so I probably included much more than you need. I'd appreciate a link to the finished article.
Thank you for considering "the other side." Please let me know if you need any further information or clarification.
Q&A:
- What do you think are some issues/topics that are overlooked when the world starts discussing and opining on America's relationship with guns in the aftermath of a tragedy such as the one at Virginia Tech?
The single most overlooked issue in this story is that Virginia Tech bans guns from its campus--even if a person can otherwise lawfully carry a concealed weapon. Past press statements from their spokesman, Associate VP of University Relations Larry Hincker, ridiculed reasoned pleas to end this prohibition, and lauded the demise of legislation that would have done that. In light of the total failure of authorities to protect students and faculty who are forbidden from protecting themselves, one must ask why major media outlets have almost universally omitted this information from their reporting.
Another big problem, both for European observers of the American scene and for our own populace, is that most people get their information about guns from a media that is overwhelmingly hostile to guns, rather than through personal experience. So when they are asked if they think gun control laws should be stricter, many will have no idea as to the current level of restrictions, of the inevitable failure of such laws to prevent societal violence, and of the credible, peer-reviewed studies showing guns in private hands save lives.
People who don't know about these things, or who are unfamiliar with and afraid of guns, are susceptible to hyperbole and misrepresentation. And unfortunately, people who react emotionally, rather than with knowledge and deliberation, make up much of the voter base for those who exploit them to ban guns.
- You write a popular blog supporting the right to bear arms. Could you summarize for an international audience the main tenants of the pro-gun position? Feel free to also address the most frequent charges from gun-control advocates.
The position of Second Amendment supporters is no more complicated than this: Each of us has a right not to be hurt by someone else, and if someone tries to hurt us, we have a right to protect ourselves. But we cannot effectively protect ourselves without the possessing the means of defense.
The most frequent charge is that guns are responsible for causing death. Left unexplored are the lives saved using a gun, the acts of violence deterred where the mere presence of a gun discourages an attack.
Look at the membership of the NRA, estimated at up to 4 million people. You will not find a more heavily armed yet law-abiding group of individuals on the planet.
If gun control worked, you'd expect places with the most restrictive laws, America's urban areas, to show the greatest benefit from severe restrictions. Yet these are invariably the most violent and dangerous places in our country. Is it any wonder, when the good people are forbidden by law to possess the means of defense? Yet such laws do not deter the bad people. Who would expect someone so debased they would rob or kill another human being to pause and consider that he'd better not violate a gun control law? It's not coincidence that mass murderers invariably select "gun free" zones, where they are guaranteed their prey won't be able to shoot back.
- When the Virginia Tech shootings happened, you wrote on your blog: "The renewed cries for disarming you and me will push this debate into a level of hysteria and demands that will be unlike anything we have yet encountered. This will be a catalyst. Count on it." What do you think will happen and how might this debate be different from others--such as the one following Columbine?
A primary difference between the present and the Columbine incident is we now have a case before the courts (Parker v District of Columbia) that has confirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. So now, in addition to calling for a ban on gun ownership, citizen disarmament proponents are calling for repealing the Second Amendment. Seeing as how, for years, they've asserted it was only intended as a collective right of states to train and equip their militias, this new tack seems particularly disingenuous--if the 2nd meant what they've been telling us it does, there would be no such need.
Right now we're seeing much posturing, hearing a lot of noise. Translating this into further federal edicts may be more problematic, with a major election approaching--we've seen Republican politicians with anti-gun records like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney now cozying up to gun owners and making pro-gun overtures.
Still, we also see renewed efforts, such as Carolyn McCarthy's resurrection of the federal ban on semiautomatic firearms, and even the NRA teaming up with her to expand the federal background check. We also see new state level bans going after semiautos, .50 caliber rifles, and a host of other restrictions that will impact lawful gun owners but won't make a bit of difference to evil men who have no intention of following any law.
----------------------------
As we related in a previous post, the paper did print the story last Friday--it's just that they never posted it to their website. Naturally, if a link ever shows up, I'll include it here.
Beyond Boomtown
The following is a reply from Bert Guy concerning "Boomtown Bust." Mr. Guy also informs me that Boomtown executives have been very helpful and supportive, but "Boomtown has been a victim of the corporation that owns them (Pinnacle Entertainment). The Gun Show was given an OK many months ago by Corporate. The Big Boss only recently changed his mind, after all of us had put our blood, sweat and tears into this Gun Show."
Here is his response to those who blame him for this mess:
David
Thank you for the opportunity. I will be glad to comment. That is substantially more than the misinformed vulgar mouths and mediators from Subguns.com have allowed me or my friends to do.
First the April ad in NRA was not the only place that the ad appeared. Here is a brief list:
Billboards - on interstate 80 East and West
Print (American Rifleman, Shotgun News, Gun List, Big Show Journal. Gun & Knife Calendar Magazine, Game & Fish Magazine, Military Publications,
Local and Feeder market (Northern California, Fernley, Fallon, Carson City, Sparks, etc...) newspapers
National Classified Network (7 million circulation)
Radio - local and feeder markets
Targeted email blasts
Targeted Shooters and Hunters direct marketing campaign
Fliers distributed at competing gun shows
Flayers direct mailed to 2,000 potential vendors
100,000 calendars with a full page ad for the gun show mailed to existing Boomtown customers
Internal signage at the casino
Info on Boomtown website
The most effective comment I have is the same one I have repeatedly sent to my disgruntled vendors and to those that have condemned me by email.
I do NOT in anyway support the decision for NO GUNS. I am quite opposed to the decision.
I will forward this email UP the ladder to the decision makers. The ones that decided NO GUNS
I agree 100% with you.
If Cho's targets would have shot back at least 30 people would have been saved.
Further I'd like to say that the news I received about the Corporate owners of Boomtown deciding we should have an "UnGun Show" came at a MOST inconvenient time in my schedule. I first heard about it Friday p.m. 4/20 as I was en route to a Phoenix gun show. I did have time at the show to share the info with a few close friends but I was still in disbelief of the decision. I thought surely it is either a piss poor joke or a verbal misunderstanding.
Unfortunately It was neither. Due to my schedule I was mostly away from my office computer until I returned from the Crossroads Gun Show late on Monday p.m. 4/23. I had to leave Tuesday a.m. to pick up a show bike and transport it to Laughlin, unload and set it up for a friend who was flying out from Ohio. Wed 4/25 I was at the Laughlin River Run working my booth but chose to drive back home to get my lap top and to share the bad news with vendors via email that in fact we were to have an UnGun show. (An email I later came to regret as the more I thought about an UnGun Show the less I wanted to attend). I Returned to Laughlin early Thursday a.m. to continue working my booth until Sunday p.m. 4/29.Laughlin was an event that had been booked and planned for nearly a year so I really could not avoid it. I apologize, but I make my living completely on the internet and at trade shows.
I apologize profusely for my inability to be at the phone when my valued vendors called. I apologize for the inconvenience of canceling the show. I apologize for the liberal misinformed decision (Which I had zip to do with) to not allow guns on the Boomtown premises for a contracted Gun Show. I apologize for not being able to argue the point with the Corporation even more than I did.
I apologize for the foul mouthed cowards from Subguns that left vulgar messages on my answer machine for my wife and young children to hear, and then bragged about it on Subguns. I apologize for the courage from afar they demonstrated by leaving no names. I apologize for the people that have boycotted my business because they listened to the lies of me being anti-gun without knowing my true stance.
I am about as fanatically pro-gun as you can get without getting thrown in the klink.
All and all I am sorry things did not work out but I did all I could do. I fought as hard as I could fight. I am a VERY disappointed victim of American Corporate liberal over ride. I hate that we are not having a GUN SHOW as it was being very nicely supported by vendors. I expected it to far surpass the last show. I am not defeated. I am delayed. I will continue with all I have set out to do.
I'd like to offer me deepest, heart felt, sincere thanks to those that recognized what was happening and showed such extremely strong support. I know no stronger words than "Thank you" but I sure feel stronger feelings than just Thank you.
Thank you,
Bert Guy
www.GatlingGuns.com
Afterword: A representative for Subguns is invited to reply if they feel they have been unfairly portrayed, but in fairness to Mr. Guy, we’d like to see an unedited link to the discussion thread he references.
RELATED:
Boomtown Busted
An Open Letter Regarding Boomtown Casino
Here is his response to those who blame him for this mess:
David
Thank you for the opportunity. I will be glad to comment. That is substantially more than the misinformed vulgar mouths and mediators from Subguns.com have allowed me or my friends to do.
First the April ad in NRA was not the only place that the ad appeared. Here is a brief list:
Billboards - on interstate 80 East and West
Print (American Rifleman, Shotgun News, Gun List, Big Show Journal. Gun & Knife Calendar Magazine, Game & Fish Magazine, Military Publications,
Local and Feeder market (Northern California, Fernley, Fallon, Carson City, Sparks, etc...) newspapers
National Classified Network (7 million circulation)
Radio - local and feeder markets
Targeted email blasts
Targeted Shooters and Hunters direct marketing campaign
Fliers distributed at competing gun shows
Flayers direct mailed to 2,000 potential vendors
100,000 calendars with a full page ad for the gun show mailed to existing Boomtown customers
Internal signage at the casino
Info on Boomtown website
The most effective comment I have is the same one I have repeatedly sent to my disgruntled vendors and to those that have condemned me by email.
I do NOT in anyway support the decision for NO GUNS. I am quite opposed to the decision.
I will forward this email UP the ladder to the decision makers. The ones that decided NO GUNS
I agree 100% with you.
If Cho's targets would have shot back at least 30 people would have been saved.
Further I'd like to say that the news I received about the Corporate owners of Boomtown deciding we should have an "UnGun Show" came at a MOST inconvenient time in my schedule. I first heard about it Friday p.m. 4/20 as I was en route to a Phoenix gun show. I did have time at the show to share the info with a few close friends but I was still in disbelief of the decision. I thought surely it is either a piss poor joke or a verbal misunderstanding.
Unfortunately It was neither. Due to my schedule I was mostly away from my office computer until I returned from the Crossroads Gun Show late on Monday p.m. 4/23. I had to leave Tuesday a.m. to pick up a show bike and transport it to Laughlin, unload and set it up for a friend who was flying out from Ohio. Wed 4/25 I was at the Laughlin River Run working my booth but chose to drive back home to get my lap top and to share the bad news with vendors via email that in fact we were to have an UnGun show. (An email I later came to regret as the more I thought about an UnGun Show the less I wanted to attend). I Returned to Laughlin early Thursday a.m. to continue working my booth until Sunday p.m. 4/29.Laughlin was an event that had been booked and planned for nearly a year so I really could not avoid it. I apologize, but I make my living completely on the internet and at trade shows.
I apologize profusely for my inability to be at the phone when my valued vendors called. I apologize for the inconvenience of canceling the show. I apologize for the liberal misinformed decision (Which I had zip to do with) to not allow guns on the Boomtown premises for a contracted Gun Show. I apologize for not being able to argue the point with the Corporation even more than I did.
I apologize for the foul mouthed cowards from Subguns that left vulgar messages on my answer machine for my wife and young children to hear, and then bragged about it on Subguns. I apologize for the courage from afar they demonstrated by leaving no names. I apologize for the people that have boycotted my business because they listened to the lies of me being anti-gun without knowing my true stance.
I am about as fanatically pro-gun as you can get without getting thrown in the klink.
All and all I am sorry things did not work out but I did all I could do. I fought as hard as I could fight. I am a VERY disappointed victim of American Corporate liberal over ride. I hate that we are not having a GUN SHOW as it was being very nicely supported by vendors. I expected it to far surpass the last show. I am not defeated. I am delayed. I will continue with all I have set out to do.
I'd like to offer me deepest, heart felt, sincere thanks to those that recognized what was happening and showed such extremely strong support. I know no stronger words than "Thank you" but I sure feel stronger feelings than just Thank you.
Thank you,
Bert Guy
www.GatlingGuns.com
---------------------
Afterword: A representative for Subguns is invited to reply if they feel they have been unfairly portrayed, but in fairness to Mr. Guy, we’d like to see an unedited link to the discussion thread he references.
RELATED:
Boomtown Busted
An Open Letter Regarding Boomtown Casino
Guest Editorial: "Resistance is Futile": Waco Rules vs. Romanian Rules
[Foreword: Here's another gem from Mike Vanderboegh that I am privileged to present on this site. The Romanian example holds particular meaning for me.]
You know, the most dangerous thing about liberals in today's America is that they are always taking policy decisions based upon three fallacies:
a. Woeful ignorance of the subject at hand,
b. Extrapolation of their own cowardice onto their opponents, i.e. expecting their opponents to react the way they do, and
c. Willful refusal to grasp that the Law of Unintended Consequences applies both to their world view and to the schemes that they use to enforce that world view upon the rest of us.
They are, in a phrase, without a clue. This is not so dangerous when they are out of power. However, as they now control both houses of Congress and have a better than even chance of controlling the White House in 2009, this has the potential to get a lot of people killed by 2010. An illustrative case in point is David Prather's recent column in the Huntsville (AL) Times, entitled "In a Shoot-out, the Feds Always Win.". Mr. Prather, it seems, has second-guessed the Founders of our tattered Republic and come up with his own idea of the futility of the armed citizenry to secure their own liberty. He writes with scorn of the belief that the Second Amendment means exactly and precisely what it says:
I am reminded here of the famous Dorothy Parker line, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." Now Mr. Prather, who has risen to the lofty position in life of Associate Editorial Page Editor of the Huntsville Times asserts that we gunnies inhabit a "John Wayne-type view of the world (that's). . .factually wrong." As the quote from the principal Founder above clearly shows, it is in fact a "Thomas Jefferson-type" view of the world. Mr. Prather believes the ballot box is a better defense against tyranny than the cartridge box. Oddly enough I agree, as long as the tyrants are willing to play by the election laws. But what happens when they don't? In his novel Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein offered an answer:
"Waco Rules"
Now I have spent a lot of time since the early days of the Clinton Administration considering the Founders' concepts of the deterrence of tyranny by the armed citizenry from the perspectives of philosophy, history, strategy and tactics. The catalyst for all this reflection was, of course, the twin menaces of the increasing Clintonista proscriptions of firearms rights (Brady and the Assault Weapons Ban) and the massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco. The subsequent failure of the Republican congress and the courts to do anything substantive about either threat-- legislative tyranny or rogue bureaucracy-- led many of us to conclude that we had now entered a time when we could only count on ourselves to maintain our liberties.
The Law of Unintended Consequences decreed that there would be two unexpected results of this Clintonista constitutional misbehavior. The first was the importation and sale within a few months of several millions of semi-auto rifles (principally SKS and AK-variants) into the U.S. This was in anticipation of, and defiance of, the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban." Indeed, this was more rifles of these types than had been sold in the previous TWENTY YEARS. And it was in a political climate where it was fully expected that the next law would call for the confiscation of such weapons. Why, then, did this massive arming take place? Were we buying these rifles merely to turn them over later? When the Clintonistas realized that we were not buying these rifles to turn them in, but to turn ON THEM if they became even more threatening to our liberties, it gave them considerable pause. I am told the analysts in the bowels of the J. Edgar Hoover building were particularly impressed.
The second unexpected result of Clintonista misbehavior, although of lesser import than the millions of rifles, was the rise of the constitutional militia movement. As London Telegraph senior reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote:
You see, what impressed us gunnies the most was the fact that under what we came to know as "Waco Rules", Catch 22 was in full swing. It was as if the Clintonistas were shouting, "We can do anything you can't stop us from doing." The constitutional militia movement, despised by the administration, caricatured by the media (and professional liars for money like Morris Dees of the Southern "Poverty" Law Center), and unjustly vilified after the Oklahoma City bombing, began to explore the question of just what could be done to stop such unconstitutional conduct on the part of the government. We realized that another way to express Catch 22 is to say, "You can do only what we let you get away with."
I think the FBI realized our power before we really understood it's full implications. For one thing, we had them surrounded. At its zenith, the militia movement had perhaps as many as 300,000 active participants, but we were backed up, you see, by the undeniable fact of those millions of rifles. Of the 85 million gun owners at the time, how many would join the militias if another Waco happened? That was the question. Both sides eventually came to the realization that in any case, it was enough. As Clausewitz observed, "In military affairs, quantity has a quality all its own."
And the first thing we noticed was that the FBI became very much more solicitous of our sensibilities and sought at every turn to avoid a flashpoint. During each little potential Waco-- the Republic of Texas, the Montana Freemen, etc-- the FBI would seek out local militia leaders and ask their advice, seeking their opinions with what sounded like real concern.
The best answer that I recall to one of these FBI queries came from Bob Wright, commander of the 1st Brigade, New Mexico Militia. When asked if he and his friends would actually go to the scene of a future Waco in another state to assist the potential victims, Bob replied, "Why would I want to do that? There's plenty of you federal SOBs around here." This was a perspective the Fibbie had not considered before, and it showed on his face.
So we got through the rest of the Clinton Administration by waging a low-intensity cold war, the history of which has yet to (and may never) be written. The principal point was this: there were no more Wacos. Although they never renounced Waco Rules, they did not again implement them.
The Three Fallacies
Which brings us to today and our armchair theorist of contemporary domestic military operations, David Prather. Let us examine his thesis: "the feds always win" by referring to the three fallacies listed above. First, let us test his woeful ignorance of the subject at hand. In fact, you CAN beat the feds in a shoot-out as was demonstrated by the Branch Davidians in the initial raid of 28 February. Four ATF agents died in this monstrous misuse of government power and far more would have, but for the fact that the Davidians, having repelled the ATF raiders from entering their home, allowed them to leave after the men in black exhausted their ammunition. In effect, the ATF asked the Davidians if they could go home and reload their guns and the Davidians, being nice guys, agreed.
Had Vo Nyugen Giap been running what the Feds later claimed was an "ambush", none of the ATFs would have left that property alive. Indeed, had the Davidians understood the full implications of Waco Rules as they were being worked out for the first time, they would have put up a far tougher fight on both 28 February and 19 April and likely could have stopped the armored vehicles in their tracks.
So, when Prather says "the feds always win", he's probably thinking of Waco, but then so are we. In his ignorance, he does not realize that others observed Waco and the exercise of Waco Rules with a keener military eye, took notes, studied and learned.
Secondly, Prather is extrapolating onto others his own cowardice and unfamiliarity with weapons. He knows HE could not resist a predatory police raid, so he assumes that others could not as well. Should there come another dark time when the feds think they can resort to Waco Rules once more, both they and Prather will discover that such assumptions are deadly mistakes.
Thirdly, The Law of Unintended Consequences is still issuing forth unplanned dividends from the Clinton misbehavior of the 90s. Remember those millions of rifles? They didn't go anywhere. They haven't disappeared.
Romanian Rules
So we have the rifles and we have one other thing: Romanian Rules.
On 16 December 1989, riots in the Romanian city of Timisoara ignited a nationwide revolt which spread to the capital Bucharest. Parts of the army joined the revolutionaries, and on 25 December, after 45 years of communist tyranny, dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elene received a Christmas present from the Romanian people when they were summarily executed. Said one Romanian radio announcer, "The anti-Christ died. Oh, what wonderful news."
Ceausescu had ruled the Romanians with an iron hand, using his dreaded secret police to pick his opponents off one by one for imprisonment or execution-- until the day came when the people learned their lesson and met the secret police and the army face to face. Thousands were killed in the fighting, many because they lacked the weapons to do the job. But we're Americans. We observed the Romanian Rules and learned. We realized too that we're much better armed than the poor Romanians.
So what makes Prather think that Americans who may wish to resist our own government if it spins out of control again, will sit idly in their little houses allowing themselves to picked off one by one? In his ignorance and arrogance, Prather has committed the ultimate sin of military planners throughout the centuries: he is presuming that the straw-man opponent he has created in his own mind will sit still and wait to be beaten on his (or Hillary Clinton's) own terms. He is presuming that his opponent won't react, won't be agile, and won't be thinking.
Prather makes much of modern day weaponry that only the government may possess. But you know, artillery and nuclear bombs are of limited utility to a government when the battlefield is its own cities, towns, transportation hubs and commercial centers. Then it becomes like Iraq, only far worse. It becomes a rat hunt where the rats outnumber you, and often, at the point of decision, beat you in the one thing that is most fundamental in an up-close infantry fight: rapid and deadly accurate rifle fire. Shouting Borg-like that "resistance is futile" may scare the faint-hearted, the weak-minded and certain children under the age of ten. It does NOT scare us.
And that is what invalidates Prather's fantasy scenario: we've had almost 15 years to study Waco Rules now. Fifteen years of studying how to best direct the resources of the armed citizenry against the next predatory administration grown too big for its constitutional britches. Fifteen years of considering the lessons of Christmas, 1989. After the cold war with the Clintonistas, we gunnies began to understand the finer points of credible deterrence. Now, having completed a long and challenging curriculum, we certainly understand what Jefferson meant by "pardon and pacify them." It would be wiser if Mr. Prather and his historically foolish liberal friends did not seek to give us a final examination in this subject of study, for the results are NOT academic. Just ask Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. Of course, you'll have to go to Hell to do that.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776ATaolDOTcom
"Resistance is Futile": Waco Rules vs. Romanian Rules
by Mike Vanderboegh
by Mike Vanderboegh
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787"Resistance is Futile"
"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile." -- Star Trek: First Contact
You know, the most dangerous thing about liberals in today's America is that they are always taking policy decisions based upon three fallacies:
a. Woeful ignorance of the subject at hand,
b. Extrapolation of their own cowardice onto their opponents, i.e. expecting their opponents to react the way they do, and
c. Willful refusal to grasp that the Law of Unintended Consequences applies both to their world view and to the schemes that they use to enforce that world view upon the rest of us.
They are, in a phrase, without a clue. This is not so dangerous when they are out of power. However, as they now control both houses of Congress and have a better than even chance of controlling the White House in 2009, this has the potential to get a lot of people killed by 2010. An illustrative case in point is David Prather's recent column in the Huntsville (AL) Times, entitled "In a Shoot-out, the Feds Always Win.". Mr. Prather, it seems, has second-guessed the Founders of our tattered Republic and come up with his own idea of the futility of the armed citizenry to secure their own liberty. He writes with scorn of the belief that the Second Amendment means exactly and precisely what it says:
"This argument says that keeping firearms is necessary to ensure that the public can resist government oppression should such arise. In other words, unless you can shoot back at the feds, you can't be free. That's a nice, John Wayne-type view of the world. But it's wrong. It's not just debatably wrong. It's factually wrong. And the reason it is wrong is this: The government has and will always have more firepower than you, you and your neighbors, you and your like-minded friends or you and anybody you can conscript to your way of thinking. You simply can't arm yourself adequately against a government that is rotten and needs to be overturned. Your best defense is the ballot box, not a pillbox.. . . . You can't beat 'em. You'd be foolish to try. So let's take that argument off the table. I don't presume to say that by doing so we will be able to reach a consensus or a compromise or whatever about how we should or shouldn't control firearms in modern society. I'm just saying that shooting it out with the government is like the exhibition team versus the Harlem Globetrotters as far as who is going to win. Only a lot more bloody." -- David Prather, "In a shoot-out, the feds always win", Huntsville Times, May 2, 2007(http://www.al.com/opinion/huntsvilletimes/dprather.ssf?/base/opinion/1178097466131870.xml&coll=1)
I am reminded here of the famous Dorothy Parker line, "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think." Now Mr. Prather, who has risen to the lofty position in life of Associate Editorial Page Editor of the Huntsville Times asserts that we gunnies inhabit a "John Wayne-type view of the world (that's). . .factually wrong." As the quote from the principal Founder above clearly shows, it is in fact a "Thomas Jefferson-type" view of the world. Mr. Prather believes the ballot box is a better defense against tyranny than the cartridge box. Oddly enough I agree, as long as the tyrants are willing to play by the election laws. But what happens when they don't? In his novel Starship Troopers, Robert Heinlein offered an answer:
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."Indeed, the Founders were only able to secure their right to the ballot box by taking up their cartridge boxes and muskets and standing against the army of the most powerful empire in the world at the time and fighting it to a standstill. What has fundamentally changed about the universe since then? Communication is faster, weapons are more powerful, but as we see in Iraq, a determined armed minority can be impossibly overmatched and still cause a good deal of trouble.
"Waco Rules"
Now I have spent a lot of time since the early days of the Clinton Administration considering the Founders' concepts of the deterrence of tyranny by the armed citizenry from the perspectives of philosophy, history, strategy and tactics. The catalyst for all this reflection was, of course, the twin menaces of the increasing Clintonista proscriptions of firearms rights (Brady and the Assault Weapons Ban) and the massacre of the Branch Davidians at Waco. The subsequent failure of the Republican congress and the courts to do anything substantive about either threat-- legislative tyranny or rogue bureaucracy-- led many of us to conclude that we had now entered a time when we could only count on ourselves to maintain our liberties.
The Law of Unintended Consequences decreed that there would be two unexpected results of this Clintonista constitutional misbehavior. The first was the importation and sale within a few months of several millions of semi-auto rifles (principally SKS and AK-variants) into the U.S. This was in anticipation of, and defiance of, the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban." Indeed, this was more rifles of these types than had been sold in the previous TWENTY YEARS. And it was in a political climate where it was fully expected that the next law would call for the confiscation of such weapons. Why, then, did this massive arming take place? Were we buying these rifles merely to turn them over later? When the Clintonistas realized that we were not buying these rifles to turn them in, but to turn ON THEM if they became even more threatening to our liberties, it gave them considerable pause. I am told the analysts in the bowels of the J. Edgar Hoover building were particularly impressed.
The second unexpected result of Clintonista misbehavior, although of lesser import than the millions of rifles, was the rise of the constitutional militia movement. As London Telegraph senior reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote:
"The Clinton era . . spawned an armed militia movement involving tens of thousands of people. The last time anything like this occurred was in the 1850's with the emergence of the southern gun clubs. It is easy to dismiss the militia as right-wing nuts: it is much harder to read the complex sociology of civic revolt. . . No official has ever lost a day's pay for precipitating the incineration of 80 people, most of them women and children, in the worst abuse of power since Wounded Knee a century ago. Instead of shame and accountability, the Clinton administration accused the victims of setting fire to themselves and their children, a posthumous smear that does not bear serious scrutiny. It then compounded the injustice by pushing for a malicious prosecution of the survivors. Nothing does more to sap the life of a democracy than the abuse of power." Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Secret Life of Bill Clinton
You see, what impressed us gunnies the most was the fact that under what we came to know as "Waco Rules", Catch 22 was in full swing. It was as if the Clintonistas were shouting, "We can do anything you can't stop us from doing." The constitutional militia movement, despised by the administration, caricatured by the media (and professional liars for money like Morris Dees of the Southern "Poverty" Law Center), and unjustly vilified after the Oklahoma City bombing, began to explore the question of just what could be done to stop such unconstitutional conduct on the part of the government. We realized that another way to express Catch 22 is to say, "You can do only what we let you get away with."
I think the FBI realized our power before we really understood it's full implications. For one thing, we had them surrounded. At its zenith, the militia movement had perhaps as many as 300,000 active participants, but we were backed up, you see, by the undeniable fact of those millions of rifles. Of the 85 million gun owners at the time, how many would join the militias if another Waco happened? That was the question. Both sides eventually came to the realization that in any case, it was enough. As Clausewitz observed, "In military affairs, quantity has a quality all its own."
And the first thing we noticed was that the FBI became very much more solicitous of our sensibilities and sought at every turn to avoid a flashpoint. During each little potential Waco-- the Republic of Texas, the Montana Freemen, etc-- the FBI would seek out local militia leaders and ask their advice, seeking their opinions with what sounded like real concern.
The best answer that I recall to one of these FBI queries came from Bob Wright, commander of the 1st Brigade, New Mexico Militia. When asked if he and his friends would actually go to the scene of a future Waco in another state to assist the potential victims, Bob replied, "Why would I want to do that? There's plenty of you federal SOBs around here." This was a perspective the Fibbie had not considered before, and it showed on his face.
So we got through the rest of the Clinton Administration by waging a low-intensity cold war, the history of which has yet to (and may never) be written. The principal point was this: there were no more Wacos. Although they never renounced Waco Rules, they did not again implement them.
The Three Fallacies
Which brings us to today and our armchair theorist of contemporary domestic military operations, David Prather. Let us examine his thesis: "the feds always win" by referring to the three fallacies listed above. First, let us test his woeful ignorance of the subject at hand. In fact, you CAN beat the feds in a shoot-out as was demonstrated by the Branch Davidians in the initial raid of 28 February. Four ATF agents died in this monstrous misuse of government power and far more would have, but for the fact that the Davidians, having repelled the ATF raiders from entering their home, allowed them to leave after the men in black exhausted their ammunition. In effect, the ATF asked the Davidians if they could go home and reload their guns and the Davidians, being nice guys, agreed.
Had Vo Nyugen Giap been running what the Feds later claimed was an "ambush", none of the ATFs would have left that property alive. Indeed, had the Davidians understood the full implications of Waco Rules as they were being worked out for the first time, they would have put up a far tougher fight on both 28 February and 19 April and likely could have stopped the armored vehicles in their tracks.
So, when Prather says "the feds always win", he's probably thinking of Waco, but then so are we. In his ignorance, he does not realize that others observed Waco and the exercise of Waco Rules with a keener military eye, took notes, studied and learned.
Secondly, Prather is extrapolating onto others his own cowardice and unfamiliarity with weapons. He knows HE could not resist a predatory police raid, so he assumes that others could not as well. Should there come another dark time when the feds think they can resort to Waco Rules once more, both they and Prather will discover that such assumptions are deadly mistakes.
Thirdly, The Law of Unintended Consequences is still issuing forth unplanned dividends from the Clinton misbehavior of the 90s. Remember those millions of rifles? They didn't go anywhere. They haven't disappeared.
Romanian Rules
So we have the rifles and we have one other thing: Romanian Rules.
On 16 December 1989, riots in the Romanian city of Timisoara ignited a nationwide revolt which spread to the capital Bucharest. Parts of the army joined the revolutionaries, and on 25 December, after 45 years of communist tyranny, dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife Elene received a Christmas present from the Romanian people when they were summarily executed. Said one Romanian radio announcer, "The anti-Christ died. Oh, what wonderful news."
Ceausescu had ruled the Romanians with an iron hand, using his dreaded secret police to pick his opponents off one by one for imprisonment or execution-- until the day came when the people learned their lesson and met the secret police and the army face to face. Thousands were killed in the fighting, many because they lacked the weapons to do the job. But we're Americans. We observed the Romanian Rules and learned. We realized too that we're much better armed than the poor Romanians.
So what makes Prather think that Americans who may wish to resist our own government if it spins out of control again, will sit idly in their little houses allowing themselves to picked off one by one? In his ignorance and arrogance, Prather has committed the ultimate sin of military planners throughout the centuries: he is presuming that the straw-man opponent he has created in his own mind will sit still and wait to be beaten on his (or Hillary Clinton's) own terms. He is presuming that his opponent won't react, won't be agile, and won't be thinking.
Prather makes much of modern day weaponry that only the government may possess. But you know, artillery and nuclear bombs are of limited utility to a government when the battlefield is its own cities, towns, transportation hubs and commercial centers. Then it becomes like Iraq, only far worse. It becomes a rat hunt where the rats outnumber you, and often, at the point of decision, beat you in the one thing that is most fundamental in an up-close infantry fight: rapid and deadly accurate rifle fire. Shouting Borg-like that "resistance is futile" may scare the faint-hearted, the weak-minded and certain children under the age of ten. It does NOT scare us.
And that is what invalidates Prather's fantasy scenario: we've had almost 15 years to study Waco Rules now. Fifteen years of studying how to best direct the resources of the armed citizenry against the next predatory administration grown too big for its constitutional britches. Fifteen years of considering the lessons of Christmas, 1989. After the cold war with the Clintonistas, we gunnies began to understand the finer points of credible deterrence. Now, having completed a long and challenging curriculum, we certainly understand what Jefferson meant by "pardon and pacify them." It would be wiser if Mr. Prather and his historically foolish liberal friends did not seek to give us a final examination in this subject of study, for the results are NOT academic. Just ask Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu. Of course, you'll have to go to Hell to do that.
Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776ATaolDOTcom
Ignoring the Obvious
The single biggest factor that could have changed the outcome was an armed defense. It had the best chances of stopping the attack, regardless of all the unknowns, because it could have been done at exactly the moment when his intent became obvious.WarOnGuns comment poster TJH reaffirms my belief that sometimes I just need to shut up and get out of you folks' way. I'm really privileged to have visitors of the quality most of you exhibit on a daily basis.
The Intent of the Framers
No one questioned the reasons or need for private ownership of firearms when the Founding Fathers drafted the Second Amendment. ... The Framers were passionately devoted to the idea that an armed citizenry is self-sufficient and is also one of the best ways to ensure that freedom can be preserved from one generation to the next.Nice words, Sandy. So when is NRA going to reverse its position that no one should have a gun on school campuses except law enforcement and security personnel? Or would those "passionate Framers" have agreed with you and Wayne that these should be citizen disarmament zones?
[Via KABA Newslinks]
No Campaign
The National Rifle Association isn't pressing for a specific policy regarding weapons on U.S. college and university campuses, said Andrew Arulanandam, the Fairfax, Virginia-based group's director of public affairs. The group addresses campus gun laws on a state-by-state basis, he said.Why the hell not? What are you people waiting for--another school shooting?
"For them to suggest that there's a campaign under way is wrong," Arulanandam said in a telephone interview.
[Via KABA Newslinks]
