But what happened the other day was uncalled for, hysterical and ugly. And it points to a greater issue that must be addressed and faced--the widening gulf between majority "pragmatists" and we happy few "principles freaks."
I personally would not have used Mike's approach with an edge-of-the-pool audience. My goal there would be to persuade them to stick their toes in, perhaps wade around a bit.
But Mike did not share goals with me in this instance, and that's fine, too. He wanted to introduce a concept most had never thought about: What happens if "they" keep pushing and "we" say "No"? What rule says all letters to the editor must be geared to "win hearts and minds"? By what authority does anyone presume that public warnings of dire consequences have no place? How about letters that inspire some of us, and let us know we're not alone, or letters that give those doing the pushing pause to consider there may be an "or else" with personal consequences attached to the "Stop it now"?
That's legitimate. It needs to be considered. And I really see no difference between the letter Mike wrote, which has received such reactionary disapproval, and Charlton Heston, whom the same people revere, holding up a gun and proclaiming "From my cold dead hands!"
They both presuppose an unjust attack by government precipitating forceful resistance. Just what the hell is the Second Amendment ultimately supposed to be about, if not this? Why is everybody acting like this is some kind of big secret to be kept from the public?
Instead, Mike's letter has been presented in a fundamentally dishonest way--that he is advocating initiating violent revolution, shooting government agents and cops, fomenting civil war. People claiming this are either intentional liars, or just plain ignorant as to the facts and irresponsibly willing to spread malicious information without verifying it.
The corollary to this is Mike's a coward--a loudmouth from the sidelines, a fool who has no clue as to the implications of mass insurrection, urging others to do his dirty work and shed blood while he stays safe. Since the first claim is untrue, this is a mere fabrication based on false assumptions. And hypocritical projections, when you consider how so many of those leveling the charge of cowardice post under aliases.
I also see arrogance and foolishness on the part of Mike's rude critics--their way is the only proven way, anything else is counterproductive. Their presentation is the only one (!) that works. Any other is a diversion of resources and "makes us all look bad."
That's a pretty historically unsubstantiated stance to take. It reminds me of nothing so much as military maneuvers of centuries past--everyone marching in rigid lines into a hail of enemy fire. There's no room for asymmetric guerrilla warfare--political, propaganda or otherwise--in this unimaginative worldview.
There are other niches to be filled than the political, you know, other tactics to be employed than marching in lock step. Of course there's a place for political activism--if that's where you want to direct your efforts. But ultimately, the way it's being practiced, everything depends on majority rule democracy. Which means anyone living in a major urban area or blue state is screwed. (Unless you file a lawsuit, which the pragmatic leaders initially did everything in their power to sabotage.)
I notice these same people are strangely silent on undeserved NRA ratings given to gun-grabbing politicians. I see them lining up to prove there is no betrayal they will not accept and reward with a "lesser of two evils" vote, as they level ridicule, contempt and blame at anyone who suggests voting on principle.
What I'm really seeing here is hatred--I'm seeing a hatred for those who advocate no compromise that is even fiercer than that which they direct at out-and-out gungrabbers. Wrap your head around that for a moment, and what it means. And this is illustrated by one comment poster on another blog who says he "would shoot the yahoo first," meaning a radical gun owner fighting the government. What's really telling is, not one "pragmatist" chastised him for it.
And it's a greedy hatred. The pragmatic political compromisers have the megaphone in this debate. They are the ones who have the loudest voices, the farthest reach, the most financial backing. The voices of men like Vanderboegh are mostly confined to echoes at wilderness outposts. Blogs like this one hardly make a dent except for a thousand or so daily readers. Most others where Mike's work appears get even fewer.
Yet, as I've said before, and as this latest example illustrates, there are those who begrudge us even this small portion. They demand nothing less than to silence us altogether. There is no room in the debate for men like Mike, men like me, and if you're one of the WoG regulars who believe as we do, men like you.
They want us to shut up. They want us to go away. Here's substantiation, from two gun blogs much more popular than this one:
Get on board, or get your f*cking shed in Montana and start living up to your words. If you aren’t ready to start storming the gates, so to speak, then deep down, you believe that something can be changed inside the system. Get to work now, or shut the hell up and get off the internet. You’re clogging the tubes for people who really want to organize.and
It is important that law-abiding, patriotic, and SANE/RATIONAL gun owners silence these fools (giving them no platform), because they make us all look like we’re a bunch of paranoid delusionals.Their way or the highway.
Sorry. I don't think I want to trust my freedom to such as these, so if they don't mind, I'll keep doing what I'm doing. And if they do mind, I'd say they have a problem.
111 comments:
I've read a number of Mike V's essays, and have always come away impressed with both the content and style.
The only question I have (for everyone)is: who gives a rat's ass what our enemies think of us?
The word 'enemies' should be a clue as to our view towards those who wish to disarm us. If someone like Mike V can scare them s***less, or maybe educate a few, then more power to him!
You can only kick a dog so many times before it gets pissed enough to take a chunk out of your ass, and I'm tired of being the dog.
mg
i thought i had made a good point, early on enough in the commentary. i guess it needs clarification.
"Do we want to be perceived as a dangerous lunatic fringe?"
mike doesn't represent anyone except mike. i wish there were a way to cure collectivism that didn't kill the patient; obviously you didn't get the memo that simply buying a gun doesn't make you free.
"... violent rhetoric is counterproductive toward that end."
there was nothing violent about what mike said. to say something in a violent fashion and to describe or call for violence are two, three completely different things.
"... felt better supporting Vanderboegh's position, or supporting Bialek's position (or anything in the middle)?"
opinions have neither sides nor middles. they come from minds, not number lines. a compromise is a blend of elements of two opinions, not an average or a median.
"But don't say 'you do this an' I'll shoot ya!'"
are you an army of one? you are on your own with that attitude. i think sean took care of this one quite nicely; i have little to add.
"why are you posting on an internet forum instead of out shooting people?"
you know what this sounds like.
do you carry a gun? yeah? do you use it every day? no? well what are you so afraid of?
I would like to think that being sane and rational is going to work long term. We all know the terms gun nut, tin foil hat, etc. we are labeled with at every opportunity. So, no we don't want to draw attention to ourselves, or do we? staying quiet hasn't seen much progress in our direction. It's evident that the policy makers are putting protections in place to keep anythingthey deemed threatening an arrestable offense. With a long line of politicians lobbing new laws at us aimed at making it a crime in one fashion or another to own or posses almost anything from large amounts of ammo or weapons to certain features on guns. The tactic of throwing as many laws out there with the true intent to pass a few, we are constantly losing ground. At what point is our back truely against the wall? It's hard to know, what is or when we are over reacting. one thing is for sure sooner or later the dam is going to break.
I would tend to agree with Mr. Codrea that, even while I disagree with the method Mr. Vanderboegh presented his ideas, the idea of 'silencing' him is simply morally repugnant. We can give constructive criticism to each other, and hopefully learn from each other on how to be more effective, but ultimately, the beauty of America is it's made up of a lot of individuals. The idea of, among all groups, pro-gun people, forcibly silencing someone they disagree with seems... confused, frankly.
I was shocked at all the posters' insistence that we are winning victory after victory for RKBA.
I am a natural pessimist; that way when things go badly I have already planned for it, and if things go well, I can celebrate.
I have no idea what the "glass-is-half-full" crowd will do if, in a few short months to a years' time, all of our "victories" are erased and our worst nightmare becomes reality.
"you know what this sounds like.
do you carry a gun? yeah? do you use it every day? no? well what are you so afraid of?"
Heh. I keep a hammer in my truck as well, but I dont use IT every day, either.
But when you need a tool, only the correct tool will suffice.
WOW! That was a concise well thought out, rebutal/reprisal of the issue.
Well done!
David
As for myself, I chose to cast my lot with the sentiments of that other "dangerous lunatic fringe" group otherwise known as our founding fathers. I'm certain that letters were written about their radical goings on as well back in the day.
Mike V. blessings on you for speaking your mind, and in so powerful and eloquent a fashion. Just so happens I agree with most if not all of your points, but I will by God stand here and defend your right to say them in any case.
And I may be a tired old fat man, but I still know which end of a battle rifle goes bang and will do all I can to watch your six.
These guys,(and a few women?) are nothing more than Freedoms real enemy. They are just as bad as big Gov't and are part of the problem.
They solve nothing and care nothing for anything other than themselves.They've shown that they are willing to bicker over crossed T's and dotted I's. And really,who cares about such trivial details.
We've been losing the "gun rights" battle for decades. And NO amount of "rulings" or "legislation" is going to role things back to how they were,or should be. So Vanderboegh, as well as MANY of us,have taken the "hardball" stance, at least we aren't hiding behind Anonimity.
I'd rather stand, and fall, with the so called "bomb throwers" and "wacko's" anyday. So spue your hatred as much as you want,and remember there will be many more Olofson's and Wayne's.Maybe the one's verbally lashing out will be next.
There really is nothing more to say about this subject that hasn't been said already. Remember, it took less than 3 percent of the population then, to bring us to where we are NOW.
I'll pick and stand with the lower numbers anyday, and pray to God for strength and resolve to do what needs to be done and when. No when gets out alive anyway..
Molon Labe indeed.
David, It's called risk avoidance. When you want something, but not enough to risk for it, and you state it publicly, so that those who would take it from you know you will not risk, they will take it. Thus making all the dire predictions of the pragmatists come true.
When one is so afraid that he requires others to share his fear, he is worthless. Hell, I'm afraid. I have been afraid many times. I expect I will be afraid many more. However, I have never let the fear rule me or change my commitment to what I thought was my duty. I won't start now.
In fact, just like Mike, I am afraid of what appears inevitable. That is why it is imperative that the enemies of our rights understand what the consequences may be if they push too hard or too far.
Repeatedly letting them believe there is nothing they can do that will bring hardship to them is a guarantee that there is nothing they won't do to subjugate us.
"Pragmatists" willingly ignore this fact. History has proven it time and again, yet there are always those who hope their proclamations of subservience will ensure their safety, if not their liberty.
I have never been convinced that the pragmatists are truly not on the side of those enemies of our rights. A look at the hysterical and hypocritical charges leveled at Mr.V. is a tactic that comes right out of the playbook of those enemies.
I defy anyone to show where any of us have called for rebellion or the killing of anyone. They cannot, the best they can do is show where we have warned of its likelihood should the other side initiate the unacceptable.
The impetus for such would be at the choice of those who will not honor our rights. That is why we aren't shooting people now. That is why we are trying our damnedest to make it known what a tragedy could ensue at the initiation of hostilities by the other side.
GET IT? INITIATION OF HOSTILITIES BY THE OTHER SIDE!
To those who call Mike V. a coward, they are simply fearful liars. No benefit of the doubt, no seeing their side of it, they are liars who are so afraid that they would destroy someone who has the guts to hang his out there publicly, which they do seem wont to do themselves, except to proclaim their willingness to be subjugated.
I use a pseudonym for most comments, but most know my name because I don't hide it. For those of you who don't it is Charles H. Sawders, Doddridge, Ar.
Now all you ninnies who have made such hysterical claims, it is your turn to identify yourselves. Wouldn't want you to call yourselves cowards, would we?
I guess I'm just a scatterbrain, because I am still confused. Some sort of threat is apparently present in Mike's piece. I have read it for the fifth time, and I cannot find it.
Would one of the commenters assist me? If you would, please write out the complete sentence containing Mike's threat.
Thanks in advance.
-Confused in Connecticut
It's been said a few times that Mr. Vanderboegh is or is not suggesting a civil war. I think that's worth discussing:
"There are some of us "cold dead hands" types... who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty."
We, of course, know he MEANS 'if someone tries to enter my house, I will fire'. But what he SAID is 'if anyone tries to restrict my [right to own firearms], people like me will kill them.'
"Are you truly prepared to stack up the bodies necessary to accomplish your plan?"
Again, suggesting lots of killing, but without specifying all those 'bodies' were attempting to enter his house to take his firearms (in violation of the Constitution).
"Then quit proposing the next American civil war."
Of course, the original author never mentioned a civil war, Mr. Vanderboegh is the only one to suggest it. And no upper government can start a civil war. Mr. Vanderboegh has already said it'll be FEDERAL agents he'd be shooting at. So by definition, he is saying people like HIM would be actually starting the civil war.
Again, yes, Mr. Vanderboegh almost certainly MEANT 'if you enter my house in violation of the Consitituion, I will defend myself'. However, what he WROTE is 'if anyone restricts my liberties, people like me will kill them'. Technically, his shooting me because I parked in front of his driveway would qualify, under that statement. So yes, a literal reading would seem to suggest, at minimum, HIS initiating violence and, at worst, his direct involvement in revolution against the US government (since, again, the US gov't can't really start a civil war against itself, or against its people).
It's simple, TJH--Mr. Vanderboegh has threatened to make people think about the consequences of their actions.
Frightfully rude of him, is it not?
Some people just don't understand that saying "you do this and there WILL be consequences" is NOT threatening an innocent person. Everytime I post something similar I get scolded for threatening to kill people.
Saying 'if you step into the road, you may be hit by a car' is not a threat. However, saying 'if you come to my house, I will shoot you in the head' is a threat.
For further clarification:
Threat -
1. a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course; menace:
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
Mr. Vanderboergh's statement, whether justified or not, was fairly clearly a threat (by use of 'us', implying himself being included in those who will kill).
"What I'm really seeing here is hatred..."
Not me, David. I don't think so. I think it's principally about fear.
The Pragmatists' principal value in all this is finding a way to live in peace. All else being equal, there is nothing in the world wrong with that and everything right. The essential assertion of the Principles faction is that "all else" is not "equal": that there is no "peace" worth attempting to preserve, or -- at the very least -- we are well on our way into that condition.
I don't think the Pragmatists' response is "hate", David. I think they're just scared shitless and they don't know how to act.
And I can't blame them for being afraid, all while I maintain that their politics is just dead wrong.
He is not saying "if you come to my house, I will shoot you in the head", he is saying "if you come to my house and try to harm me or my family, I will shoot you in the head". That is simply a declaration that actions, especially evil actions, have consequences.
You can avoid being shot by not initiating violence against innocent people. Simple, isn't it? If not, you need to examine your morality.
Everytime I post something,by grace of David Codrea,(thanks boss, shoot me an e-mail if you want some dough to compensate for all the steam) I feel like I should begin by sticking my fingers down my throat. Me, I know I'm frightfully rude, I just didn't know how many pussies were out there. Anybody needs me, you know where to find me. I'll be over at the "My darling, I don't give a damn",bar.
"There are some of us "cold dead hands" types... who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty."
In other words:
If you restrict our liberties, we will kill you.
How is that NOT a threat?
"if you come to my house and try to harm me or my family, I will shoot you in the head".
This is ALSO a threat.
Action:
you come to my house and try to harm me or my family
Conditional injurous retribution:
I will shoot you in the head
Again, I'm not saying that threats are WRONG. Saying 'I will fight to defend myself and my country' is an implied threat, but it is a GOOD threat. HOWEVER, it is still a threat.
Billy, I agree with you a lot, and think your answer is correct but not complete. Fear breeds hatred. People resent fearing something, and they hate what makes them feel diminished.
Case in point--they have this anonymous solon over at SIH who posted this bit of cheer:
I will believe that he and David Codrea and the rest of them have the courage of their convictions when I see them dead in a ditch, riddled with ATF gunfire, over one of these supposedly totalitarian episodes — known to normal people as “law enforcement” — that they complain so bitterly about in their writings.
That's pretty clearly hatred.
So, nezumi, you think that attackers have an absolute human right to prey on the innocent? Or do I have an absolute human right to declare that I will not stand by and be victimized? You can't have it both ways.
No. The two are separate issues.
I have a right to threaten people with violence if they attack me (legitimately or not).
I have a right to defend myself if I am attacked.
However, a threat is still a threat. Just because I am threatening to use my legitimate rights does not mean it suddenly ceases to be a threat.
I agree with Mr. Vanderboergh's threat (well, not how it's phrased above, but what you and I know him to actually be saying). But it is most clearly a threat.
As usual, very well-said, David.
This, for me, goes to the very heart of why I am here looking at this resource (for it is far more than just a blog) in the first place. When I got here the first time, it stunned me how directly people were discussing my own innermost thoughts...thoughts that I have developed a fantastic ability to keep from damn near everyone, for fear of "looking bad". (I'm recovering, guys--please bear with me... :-)
I half expected--honestly--the direct discussion would somehow implode on itself and reinforce for me the "need" to keep my real thoughts under wraps. But it doesn't. It flares up sometimes, when we get a little too close to where people live...but even in this discussion (mostly beyond these pages) and all the nasty things that I see in it, what I do not see is anyone taking Mike V. to task over content or sentiment--it is all and only about "image". Boy, what does that say? I agree that this discussion needs to happen in our extended ranks.
In the end (from what I have seen anyway), the direct, open, principled stance is what stands the test of time, and I have yet to see anyone effectively refute it--anywhere. It gives me hope that truth and honesty may, in fact, be an absolute defense for the principled. (That someone may pay a price for it, is a completely separate matter.)
I like the fact that this discussion has brought up the absolutely platinum point that "fair warning" is not at all the same thing as a threat. Libertarians observe the "zero-aggression principle", which effectively says that we will never initiate hostilities. This leaves plenty of room for response, which is what we are all talking about anyway. As it went with Jeff Cooper:
Q: Don't you think that violence begets violence?
JC: I would certainly hope that it does!
Go go gadget Mike! (Would you be offended if we started calling you "V"?)
That's pretty clearly hatred.
Don't mistake hatred for contempt, David.
And don't mistake the object of the contempt. I don't begrudge the refusal to compromise, just the refusal to grasp that publicly indulging in assassination fantasies about federal LEOs is cowardly, hypocritical, and stupid on a whole variety of levels.
I think one of the reasons for Fudds being in such a dither is they know something is wrong w/current gun laws and they know voting for a solution is a joke and they know we are headed down the wrong path but they just don't have the guts to say it much less print it.
Also, to Nezumi's point on the semantica of what constitutes a threat:
Maybe Mike's verbiage does constitute a threat, to some people's definition. (We certainly know that those arrayed against us are perfectly willing to construe anything we may say, in the most unflattering way possible. We have no control over that--all we have is principle.) My question is, how, exactly, would that be any different than the threat of violent retribution that we all live under every single day, for such mundane things as paying taxes, seeking "approval" for exercising basic rights, not taking a leak within some arbitrary distance of a waterway, speaking out against those who are busy trying to make sure they are the Only Ones with the means to physically enforce their will, etc.?
Is it that Mike actually has the stones to specify what will happen, whereas the state's threat of forcible incarceration or other physical subjugation (up to and including death) is merely implied?
I think I understand the point you're trying to make, and I'm not going to say you're wrong that someone may perceive Mike's comments as a threat. But so what? We live under threat every day...and most important to me, there is a big difference between Mike's "fair warning" and the state's threats: "fair warning" passes the Zero Aggression Principle test, while the state's unsolicited encroachments do not, have not, and never will.
I am starting to ask myself the question, "Why are we so obsessed with decency?" This is a question of sovereignty, not decency--and I would submit that losing one's individual sovereignty is about as indecent as I can imagine.
Hell, without sovereignty, our decency is not even ours.
Oh and Mike - III.
Ah, BC, the anonynmous but contempt-filled solon who would see me bullet-riddled in a ditch.
Perhaps you could point to my indulging in these "assassination fantasies" you wish me to pay the price for?
I have a lot of stuff out there--I'm sure you can find at least one essay where my thesis is initiation of force against the government, where I endorse entering into a civl war, or goad others into violence or actions I am unwilling to engage in myself?
Since it seems to be your primary beef against me, at least what you've stated so far, that and the fact that I "complain about law enforcement," I'd think you could find so many examples that just sorting through them would be problematic. So I'll make it easy on you: just find one.
1) Mr. MacNigal said:
"Some people just don't understand that saying "you do this and there WILL be consequences" is NOT threatening an innocent person. Everytime I post something similar I get scolded for threatening to kill people."
That's not true. It IS a threatening people.
2) There's a difference between a legally justified threat and a morally justified threat.
Of course, the two are not necessarily the same (and in fact, frequently are not!)
However, in the US, MOST people agree that we need the government to provide basic services, like arresting murderers, paving roads, stopping dangerous behavior like driving on the wrong side of the road, etc. And that, in order to do this, they must be able to enforce these rules. Using force in order to do this is acceptable, as long as it's used to the appropriate degree (i.e. - shooting someone for speeding is not appropriate, whether state-sanctioned or not.)
Generally the US government respects this, and avoids actually killing people who shouldn't be killed. And so, whether deserved or not, there's a trust relationship that, if the gov't started shooting, they almost certainly weren't the first ones to shoot, or at least the target presented a legitimate threat. So there's a trust relationship between the gov't and the public on that count.
Mr. Vanderboergh does not have that degree of rapport with most of the public. Sure, everyone here knows, if I walked into his house and was an absolute ass, but I wasn't actually a threat, he absolutely wouldn't kill me, and that if he DOES kill me for something, I probably deserved it. But people who aren't familiar with him don't know that. So there's no trust relationship, and when he says things about how he's willing to use violent force, there's an automatic reaction of distrust against him.
Secondly is his degree of force. He didn't say 'if anyone violates my God-given liberties, I shall shove them most roughly'. He said there would be piles of bodies. If anyone in the government said something like 'we're aiming to crack down on drug trafficking by leaving piles of bodies', it would get a pretty strong reaction as well. People, by and large, do not like seeing lots of other people get killed, even if they had it coming.
So that's the difference between gov't threat of violence and Mr. Vanderboergh's threat of violence; one has a trust relationship the other lacks, one is threatening to eb far more extreme than other. Both will generally cause a poor reaction on the part of the general public.
Remedial reading comprehension would appear to be in order, David. Mike is the one slinging around assassination fantasies; your particular schtick is simply to howl with incandescent outrage about, say, Wayne Fincher -- only to later admit, grudgingly, that despite agreeing with him in substance you wouldn't do as he did. You're a different flavor of armchair revolutionary than Mike, but an armchair revolutionary all the same.
David is "a different flavor"? Am I to understand that you've tasted these gentlemen?
Never mind--I don't want to know.
Either way, better an armchair revolutionary than a wannabe tyranny enabler.
Molon Labe, indeed. I'll stand by Mike's side.
See there....
I thought bc was a serious debater...
Instead he is just a baiter...
I was going to ask the same question as Codrea,
"Where's the link?"
And now ask it again.
So your real agenda is passiveness by freemen in order to complete an agenda....
Gotcha...
These guys,(and a few women?) are nothing more than Freedoms real enemy.
Pot? Meet kettle.
One of Joe Huffman's arguments is that gun owners, especially the uppity ones, are treated as "gun niggers" - his words. The gun rights movement is in many ways parallel to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's. In my comment at Snowflakes I called Mr. Vanderboegh the Malcolm X of the gun-rights movement. As I understand it, Martin Luther King was once asked why it was he that was the leader of the Civil Rights movement, why the press and the government wanted to deal with him. He said (and I paraphrase) "Because if I'm gone, they have to deal with Malcolm X."
The Vanderboeghs of the world have their place, too.
What's scarier: a bunch of loony leftists introducing and passing more and more legislation that curtails more and more of our freedoms or a bunch of crazy gun-nutting righties hinting at (and not actually perpetrating) violent resistant to said legislation?
The righties hint at it, while the lefties actually do it. Like it's been said by several of you (myself included), "something's gotta give"; "the dam's gonna break"; etc. They keep pushing for more big government and I'm all for pushing it back, in one form or another.
Like I read on a t-shirt awhile ago: "The Liberals keep inflaming the Conservatives. They seems to forget who has all the guns."
In other words you can't, but the bullet-riddled body in a ditch fantasy still holds. Nice.
I see your depth of knowledge about the Fincher matter consists entirely of parroting the aptly named Bitter Bitch. I stand by my reporting on the Fincher matter--as well as my constant efforts to resolve things using legal means. As for "finally admitting," that just shows how uninformed and ignorant both you and she are. I can produce writings from over a decade ago up ubntil recently where I specifically caution against doing anything that would provoke an armed raid, so there is no "finally" about it--I've been completely consistent and you quite simply and demonstrably don't know what you're talking about.
Now, on to something you just communicated to me over at SiH: "Don’t ever call [m]e a liar again, you fucking asshole."
I'm calling you a liar, BC--again.
What are you going to do about it?
Anyone who hides behind an alias leveling accusations of cowardice and being an armchair warrior against people who publicly identify themselves and accept the consequences for it is laughable. You're laughable.
Thing is, I've come to realize this is not a schism from within "our side." You're the enemy, plain and simple, a police-state worshipping coward, a subversive troll. In order to be consistent with your legal recourse theory, if the government ordered all guns turned in, you would. You have no line in the sand.
Good Lord you are a pathetic excuse for an American and a man, and I'm delighted to have your contempt. Anything else and I'd be worried I was doing something wrong.
David, these youngsters that write things like "Get on board, or get your f*cking shed in Montana and start living up to your words. If you aren’t ready to start storming the gates, so to speak, then deep down, you believe that something can be changed inside the system. Get to work now, or shut the hell up and get off the internet. You’re clogging the tubes for people who really want to organize." don't have a clue.
They also have no history.
You've been out here a long time. I seem to recall seeing you in print somewhere, even before Algore invented the intertubes.
I've been at it one way or another since 1977, when I reached my legal majority and made my first un-successful run for public office on a pro 2A platform in Illinois.
These youngster -late to the party- WANNABES are pissing in the wind if they are STILL trying to organize...
They can never get it together.
Organize? Organize what, exactly?
A million mom march?
"Organize" is the communist/Democrat method.
Better is "Networking" free individuals.
They should maybe stop sounding like the DU facistas, and, if not agree with mike, then engage him in dialog instead of acting like Democrats and telling him to shut up.
Funny thing, they don't get that what Mike is doing and saying is a lot more moral than his nay-sayers positions.
He is trying to warn of danger ahead.
Danger for EVERYONE.
Mike (or you, David) can share my foxhole any day.
I TRUST my back to moral folks.
To those trying to tear down Mike... I DON'T trust YOU.
I've read Mike V's letter, his Window War piece and Absolved. I like his style - it is very informative, fact-filled and entertaining.
It is also very practical - and practical in a GOOD way.
People who do not understand what he is trying to do, who react to unpleasant words and concepts with equally (or moreso) unpleasant words and concepts are simply not thinking things through.
Here's my interpretation:
Mike V's writings are designed to do one thing, and one thing only: to warn, in a credible way.
Who's being warned? Any person who thinks that it is both morally/legally right AND feasible to disarm the American public.
Why the need for the warning? Because, as we all know too well, our right to purchase, own, carry and use firearms for sport, self-defense and liberty has been almost inexorably eroded since at least 1934. The Heller case seems to have put the brakes on that erosion, and may lead to a significant restoration of our ability to exercise our rights (and that is a long discussion for another time and place). Nonetheless, the gun grabbers haven't said, "OK, we give up, let's start providing free M4s for everyone on Welfare." No, they are intent on using any means possible to ignore Heller, to institute back-door registration, deny permits to own and carry and, ultimately, to ban and then collect all guns not in the hands of their friends. THAT'S who is being warned.
What is the purpose of the warning? Here's the crux of the matter - because there's a seemingly unbridgeable gap between those of us who'd like to be able to own and use firearms in a peaceful manner - except when someone else brings a threat to us or our family - and those who think/believe that the average person shouldn't have that right. Someday, if the trends of the last 74 years continue, there is going to be a ban and an attempt at confiscation. This is what Mike V. is trying to stop.
Why? Well, aside from the fact that it could be successful (in which case we'd be as free as England, which is to say we wouldn't be free), I think that Mike V. understands (correctly, IMHO) that there will always be a fair number of people who will resist. How many? Impossible for anyone to know, first because very few are volunteering their thoughts on the subject (if they've even thought about it), and second because no one REALLY knows what they'd do in a seriously dangerous and stressful situation until such situation actually occurs. However, Mike V. takes a stab and says 3%, based on the number who actively resisted the Redcoats. OK, that's fair - and that is a LOT of people (about 9 million). OK, so if we accept 9 million (or even 900,000) reasonably well-armed and highly motivated people resisting the government, you have a recipe for violence. Violence on a large scale. Violence like we haven't had since the Civil War.
And Mike V. doesn't want to see that, contrary to what most of his accusors say (and, I presume, believe). If they'd dig deep (by reading "Absolved" for example) they'd understand that Mike V. has a pretty damned detailed knowledge of how various weapons work, and of their effects. He doesn't want the massive destruction, the mass bloodletting, that would result. Geez, Louise: look at what a few thousand Arabs (some Iraqi and most not) did for a few years to Iraq with over 150,000 US troops there to fight them. What would 9 million do, 9 million with arguably better equipment than most of those Arabs, or at least with the means and smarts of making or otherwise obtaining such equipment.
But you've got a bunch of tyrant-wannabees with lots of power available. They think that the use of massive force in a few locations (like Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc.) will intimidate those who wish to resist them, and they almost certainly think that there are probably no more than 9 thousand or so serious opponents, if that much, and they are confident that they can win - and they also think that their own personal safety isn't on the line.
So, in comes Mike V. He writes about the righteous indignation of average people in a hypothetical situation. He shows how an intelligent, well-motivated and reasonably well-equipped person can dish out a lot of death and destruction, and moreso with cooperation from others with a similar mindset. He shows that the motivated person WILL act, even with fairly certain knowledge of their own death. He basically gives plans for rifle grenades and other weapons right in the writings. He shows how many people, including those in the military, are opposed to the gun grab.
In short, Mike V. is not only warning the gun grabbers of the likelihood of credible and violent resistance, he's letting them know that not even the military can be counted on to follow confiscation orders. He's saying that it won't be so easy or so cheap as the gun grabbers seem to think. He's giving them (and, therefore, us) the gift of doubt.
Let them doubt. Let them wonder. Let them search their souls - not about the morality or legality of their goals, but about their personal safety. LET THEM FEAR!! People like Mike V., including John Ross with "Unintended Consequences" and Travis McGee with "Enemies Foreign and Domestic" (among others, and there ARE others) are, in my estimation, heroes. They are using their knowledge and their talents for writing, to prevent a gun grab by making the grabbers afraid. In my mind, they are in the same position of those who wrote and ratified the 2nd Amendment - they are making those in government who wish to expand their power over We The People to fear to do so.
The more stories and letters like Mike V's that are out there, the more guns that are sold, the more that people are trained in their use and have adequate ammo in their homes, the more successful the deterrent against a possible tyrant acting out his or her fantasies.
Thank you, Mr. Vanderboegh.
"If you restrict our liberties, we will kill you."
"How is that NOT a threat?"
well, because it is a conditional statement. it is not a declaration of aggression; it is assumed, if you are paying any attention, that the restriction of liberty itself is an act of irreparable aggression, to which the only answer is force.
consider the rattler.
the rattlesnake rattles not because he consciously will choose to attack, and is aware that he is warning you to move away, but because it is in his biosurvival programming to declare what you would assume is his intent. it is no such thing.
these such snakes persisted through the ages, because to attack is to be highly vulnerable for any fanged snake, and many will die even having terminally poisoned their assailant. it is the nature of snakehood.
those what had no ability to warn off predators have gone extinct (or devolved into harmless creatures, or thrived in less hostile environments by pure luck and chance).
those who had that ability avoided conflict, and thereby master their environment. so.
be ye man or hound?
bc whines like a Liberty Eradication Operative (LEO), or a sympathizer thereof.
And, no matter if "most people agree" that they want government to initiate force on their behalf or not, it is still wrong.
Paul W, overall I would agree with your well-thought out post. However, there are two points I question;
1) Mr. Vanderboegh has repeatedly stated he would only use violent force in response to an actual intrusion. Since politicians don't generally directly and literally run such raids, how are they possibly threatened by such statements?
This is a serious question. On the one hand, you can embrace the 'libertarian' view that you may only fight defensively. In which case, politicians will have no fear of you because they know as long as they have thugs to do their dirty work, they'll never be personally harmed. On the other, you can say you will use violent force to directly oppose 'tyrannical politicians' (or whatever category you want), in which case you are now the aggressor and, perhaps, the bad guy.
2) Even if Mr. Vanderboegh wrote he would deliver his threats of violence personally, are these warnings effective? How many anti-gunners are saying 'huh, if we continue on this course, people like me may die, so let me enable these people with guns to get more guns', and how many are saying 'wow, these people are crazy, the police should do something about them...' How many politicians are thinking it would genuinely be in their best interest to change their position or back off?
I have no evidence either way, but I suspect the numbers are not in our favor.
Now, again, I have no problem with Mr. Vanderboegh's writings. They ARE valuable, and they serve as warnings for those who have ears (which isn't so many). However, again, the question is one of impact.
"You have not only pissed off the ignorant but those of us who share the passion for our rights. But no yahoo forces me to make a choice. I think that I would shoot the yahoo first."
Please if you are going to use the comment, note that is said I refuse to have a yahoo "force" me to make a choice to go to war.
I object to anyone forcing me to do anything including civil war.
By the way I do not mind you quoting my comment, just use the preface.
Isher
"However, again, the question is one of impact."
Right you are, Nezumi. If just Mike does it, I suspect...well, let me sit down and let Mr. Guthrie take over:
You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may think it's a movement.
Can you imagine 50 people a day writing letters to editors saying something along the lines of what Mike just did?
No. Neither can I.
Pity.
What are you going to do about it?
Easy, David: I'm going to content myself with the knowledge that anybody reading Mike's posts over the last week with a fair mind will see this:
Instead, Mike's letter has been presented in a fundamentally dishonest way--that he is advocating initiating violent revolution, shooting government agents and cops, fomenting civil war. People claiming this are either intentional liars, or just plain ignorant as to the facts and irresponsibly willing to spread malicious information without verifying it.
and know that you are full to the brim of unmitigated horseshit.
Good Lord you are a pathetic excuse for an American and a man, and I'm delighted to have your contempt. Anything else and I'd be worried I was doing something wrong.
Right back atcha.
Links, please, bc...
Nezumi,
As to Vanderboegh's personal statements and intentions, you'll have to ask him. I suspect that someone who is so apparently dedicated to the cause of liberty will pull some punches to avoid, uh, having his fangs pulled in some fashion.
I think that the whole point of his exercise (and that of many others) is to simply plant and fertilize doubt in the minds of those politicians who would, if they could, attempt a massive power grab. Such isn't restricted to Europe in the 1920's and '30's, or to a good part of the rest of the world before and since - we Americans are every bit as human as everyone else, but have been blessed with a great system and great resources to avoid the need/call for dictatorship.
As for those antis who might be turned off by such writings: they already think that most gun owners are dangerous nuts. How's stuff like this going to make it worse? Hell, I'd bet that most of them have seen stuff like this in the past, and have long since made up their minds. I'm not worried about the grass roots anti-gun useful idiot - I'm worried about the guy or gal who can pick up a phone and have a few dozen or hundred armor-clad guys with full autos, grenades and night vision equipment visit your home at 4 AM. It is THEY who we need to impress, and impress with the difficulty or impossibility of them carrying out their ultimate goals. Believe me, they've already tried to limit our RKBA as much as they could, and 1 or a dozen or 100 articles or books of this type won't change their intentions. They are the enemy, whether we're quiet and passive or noisy and obnoxious. Being quiet and passive, loudly proclaiming what good citizens we are and how we believe in the rule of law, etc. has gotten us to where we are. They don't believe that a significant number of people will resist them in a physical sense, and they know that if such resistance is sporadic they can both put it down quickly and deter many others with some overkill - hence the stomped cats, kicks to the mid-section of pregnant women, the headshots, the burnings. That's what playing by the rules has gotten us - potential tyrants who make up the rules as they go along, and who constantly stretch them.
On the other hand, if we're a bit noisy and obnoxious, they might - just maybe - figure it isn't worth it, that they're fat and happy and powerful enough without taking a risk of pissing off "all those in-bred, gap-toothed, cousin-marrying gun nuts" (which is about what they REALLY think of us, BTW).
You know what, DiFi is petrified of the .50 BMG - she's mentioned in press conferences that they can pierce armored limos. I am THRILLED that she craps her pants at the thought of someone aiming at HER limo - maybe it keeps her from going that last extra step...and THAT is the goal.
Again, thank you Mr. Vanderboegh, and thank the others who've written similar works.
Regarding "BC":
Wow. It continues to speak and yet say nothing.
Pointless ad hominem repartee notwithstanding, I don't seem to have seen anything addressing David's direct-address "prove it" question, which to me is the material question for legitimacy in this dialogue.
(It's almost entertaining to watch someone try to go after David on his record. Like watching someone bring a rock to a gunfight...)
Mike's writing is so hotly debated, that I'm going to cut short my comments, since anything I will offer at this time will be buried under an avalanche of information admittedly more interesting than anything I may write.
Nezumi dutifully analyzed all the possibilities of the term "threat", so the discussion of that is over. The point I was going to make is that the connotation of "threat" need not be understood to mean "death threat", in all cases. A threat is a promise to perform some action in response to a prior one; a death threat names specific people. Mike named no one in particular, but did promise to defend his liberties with force. One may also threaten not to re-elect a politician who violates his oath, or threaten to destroy a firearm registration if compelled to register.
I conclude that a political resolution does not restrict us such that we must be silent about our dissatisfaction with the current circumstances, or limit our actions to only those which have some effect on the legal process. The social aspect cannot be challenged through the legislature or the courts.
Virginia gun owners held open-carry dinners out in public. Some people believe the mere presence of a firearm to be a threat, as the participants in the aforementioned VCDL open-carry function found out firsthand. I wonder if I would find the same amount of disdain for VCDL member's actions as I found regarding Mike Vanderboegh's words?
Fair enough, Isher--but as long as we're citing context, the context of Mike's letter was in response to a call for licensing, registration and bans--so his resistance scenario entailed defying the initiation of force to accomplish confiscations.
You'll forgive me for assuming this was the "yahoo" you were referring to.
"I thought bc was a serious debater...
Instead he is just a baiter..."
Mr. Goodyear: BC is doing similar things to me over at Sebastian's current thread on this, and I would hasten to clarify that he not merely a 'baiter' but a Master Baiter. :)
Mike V letter was "in your face" type of letter. I believe it was overkill against a letter advocating registration from a single person. There is no federal call for registration and that should be resisted with all the calls and letters to Congress. Since this is election year I doubt they will try. Maybe that will be different if Obama gets elected.
Mike made a good point to warn of consequences of pushing people too far. I would not phrase a letter like that but that was his choice.
No, I was responding to the comments of people who felt that civil war was already on and those who felt that civil actions still can/could not be effective. There was total contempt about the successes that have been done in the last ten years.
Basically several posters called the others pro rights people the enemy and that our way was stupid. At least that was the tone.
This was an argument over tactics. Bad tactics can lose a battle.
Mike V later comments were really arrogant and well I will just quote them.
"This is a choice YOU are going to have to make. Because that is where this is going whether you like it or not, whether you complain or not, whether you call us names or not. You WILL have to make this awful choice, not because I want it, but because YOU and your kind have never stood firm enough and shoved back when our rights were gradually stripped from us. Sebastian here, oh holier-than-thou Sebastian, is a friggin’ apologist for Olofson’s tormentors."
I know that you are one of the fiery proponents and we need people like you to show up the injustices and to get energize against those injustices. But I do not believe that we are that point that requires war.
The people who act foolish and screaming to the enemy will be the first to die. People who think romantically about civil war are usually the front ranks and get eliminated. That leaves the cooler heads to get a good strategy to succeed.
Isher
"Am I to understand that you've tasted these gentlemen?"
Hey, man, I hereby aver, attest and generally swear that I have NEVER been tasted by another guy. I was on an FTX one time and a guy who was sleeping in the same fighting position rolled over and snored in my ear, but there was no licking involved. Really.
Oh and yes I was also refering to Mike V in the yahoo remark. I support what he did, but the later comments were just designed to piss off fellow gunnies who employ different tactics. OF course Sebastian did also with the post.
Isher
Hey, man, I hereby aver, attest and generally swear that I have NEVER been tasted by another guy.
Giving BC the credit of the assumption that he qualifies as a guy, are we ;-)?
Most of us at one time or another have written of the hypothetical 'tipping point'--the point at which a line has been crossed that is so antithetical to human liberty that Jefferson's 'reset button' needs to be utilized.
What, exactly, do we think such a dreadful moment entails? Playing a friendly game of cricket?
I would think it is understood that the tactic of last resort will be a violent one, or else it would not be 'the last resort.'
Invoking the Jeffersonian model of last resort is never anything true patriots relish doing. I hope and pray it NEVER comes to that.
But to state that I will be prepared to do my part is not engaging in false bravado or engaging in reckless threats.
I truly do hope and pray that I will have the presence of mind and body to do what I am called upon to do in order to preserve liberty.
The issue, therefore, is at what precise moment is this 'tipping point' reached? It would seem that we, together, need to be clear on the answer so as to impact strategy.
Mr. Vanderboegh seems to be saying that national registration is his tipping point. Others may say it's the point of national confiscation of firearms.
We know where Mr. Vanderboegh draws his line in the sand. Do we all agree with him? If not, then his actions may result in a tragedy for him alone.
If we all agree on where to draw that line in the sand, then we may have the numbers on our side if it comes down to issuing an ultimatum to totalitarians.
In short, invoking the reset button needs to be a coordinated effort--and not an individual one--if it is to be effective.
Just some thoughts on the fly...
Martyn
The Liberty Sphere
One point I would like to make is that I believe it best not to be too specific, publicly, on exactly where that tipping point lies. With that knowledge, the other side knows exactly how far they can get away with pushing us. Better to leave them with some uncertainty, so that they know only that the "line in the sand" is not far ahead, that they're approaching it rapidly--and that they won't like what happens on the other side of it.
An excellent point, Kurt, and I agree. But at the same time, for each of us individually to set our own point of no return would result in disaster, I'm afraid.
Not that I know the answers...
I agree--the first to fight will be the first to die. Whether the rest are inspired by their example, or provoked by the inevitable ensuing crackdown is, I suppose, not important.
even in the face of nation-wide confiscation, if no one comes to your door, there is no one you need shoot.
should your fortify a community after witnessing a few of these go down, the door is perhaps moved to the edge of your town. and so on.
i do not think it would be ethical to have a lighter trigger than this, given the circumstances at the moment i am writing this.
we all know that as the bar is lowered and the transgressions increasingly violent and/or unjust, posture and strategy must change for the sake of survival. lines in the sand be damned.
so it should not worry you to have to state outright, "look, you don't want to go there. i will kill who you send for me. you are asking a hypothetical question, but to a very serious and uninformed audience [of antis], and it will have unintended and disastrous consequences. if you do all this to me, i will do all that to you, do not extrapolate."
quite frankly, the challenge is, how will you ever explain yourself if you let them extrapolate, and ignore your principles?
The Trimmer Indictment against Vanderboegh may be boiled down as follows, I think,
Charge the First, that with malice aforethought I did write a letter to a liberal newspaper warning that a proposal for national firearms registration would be met with violence, thereby scaring the straights and causing trimmers to vibrate with anxiety, lest they be mistaken for me and thus government people might deprive the trimmers of their life, liberty and property because I skeered 'em.
Charge the Second, that I have advocated the assassination and murder of local, state and federal law enforcement officers.
Charge the Third, that I lead a "Merry Band" of Three Percenters who may also be guilty of writing scary letters if properly motivated.
Charge the Fourth, that I have committed these heinous crimes ARROGANTLY.
The accused hereby pleads as follows:
To the First Count, Guilty.
To the Second Count, absolutely Not Guilty.
To the Third Count, happily Guilty.
To the Fourth Count, No Contest.
As far as threats to leave us dead in ditches, David, you must not worry about such fly buzzing. What is it they are angry about in the first place? That I wrote a letter and said things that they believe are imprudent? People scared by THAT are hardly likely to use deadly force on anybody.
They remind me of the calls I used to get in 90s, usually around midnight: "I'm going to kill you. . ." they would always begin. And I would laugh and say, "Obviously you don't understand the difference between masturbation and sex, moron. If you were going to kill me, you would just do it. Since you haven't, you're just sitting there in the dark beating your meat. When you grow a pair big enough, come see me. And, oh, by the way, only a moron or a Fed calls up and threatens people on a phone line under federal court ordered wire tap. Which are you? Maybe both, I'm guessing."
"CLICK" ;-) True story.
Somebody observed above (or maybe it was on the now closed thread over at Snowflake's place) that the real reason my letter has caused such excitement is not that it scared the straights but that it scared these fakirs who have been claiming for years to be big bad defenders of the Second Amendment. They are afraid they might have to actually DO SOMETHING someday to back up their empty words.
A final thought to allay everybody's suspicions about whether or not my letter may be construed as (whisper it softly) a t-h-r-e-a-t. There I said it, "threat." Hell yes its a threat. And an argument. And a promise. In defense of presumed attacks on my life and liberty to be sure, but a threat.
"Ultima ratio regem," as I wrote over at Snowflake's, the last argument of kings, and of free people as well.
But if people don't want to be so hypothetically "threatened" they shouldn't first go around mouthing intellectually sloppy threats themselves about wanting the government to steal other folks' liberty and property.
"Pay attention to the rattle, pilgrim, watch your step, and don't, whatever else you do, piss on the electric fence.
Vanderboegh, newly appointed leader of a Merry Band. III
Mike, maybe that's what we should start calling ourselves, a Merry Band.
I had been leaning toward the Sipsey Street Irregulars, but Merry Band will work.
III
"Giving BC the credit of the assumption that he qualifies as a guy, are we ;-)?"
OK, but if he's a she, I need to know the approximate year this is alleged to have taken place. Was I still drinking Bushmill's Irish Whiskey then? If so, I may not remember.
Pete sez: "Mike, maybe that's what we should start calling ourselves, a Merry Band. I had been leaning toward the Sipsey Street Irregulars, but Merry Band will work."
Oh, I love the Sipsey Street Irregulars, too. Hey, if we're starting one new group, there's no reason we can't have two, I mean, the Founders in Boston had the Green Dragon Tavern crowd and the Sons of Liberty, right? Both shared members but were not exactly the same.
I propose that Merry Band of Three Percenters be the political side of things and the Sipsey Street Irregulars be rather more made up of action boys and girls, like the Sons of Liberty.
Ideas, comments?
III
I would consider myself honored well beyond what I'll ever earn to be part of the Merry Band, but (being greedy), I can't help but yearn for even more unrealistic membership (an action boy in a wheelchair is more than a little ludicrous) in the Sipsey Street Irregulars.
I'm working on my ordinance engineer credentials, though.
By the way, I keep forgetting,
III
Cool, some of us can be proud that we're Merrily Irregular! :)
I keep forgetting, too, Kurt:
III
OK, somebody just sent me the lyrics of a song called, "Don't Whiz on the Electric Fence" from the "Ren and Stimpy Show" which I vaguely recognize as a cable cartoon show that I might have seen 30 seconds of once.
Here are the lyrics. Anybody want to take a shot at reworking them for our new angry friends? -- Vanderboegh III
Ren And Stimpy - Don't Whiz On The Electric Fence lyrics
Charlie Brissette/Tom Armbruster/John Kricfalusi)
When nature's callin'
Don't be stallin'
Use your common sense
Before you let it flow
Find a place to go
Just don't whiz on the electric fence
If you're gonna explode
You can use the commode
Of igloos, cave dwellings or tents
No need to explain when you gotta drain
Just don't whiz on the electric fence
You can swizzle on the sofa
Piddle in the air
Tinkle in the toilet
That's why it is there
You can let it rain
In the breakfast lane
While waving at ladies and gents
Just don't whiz on...
Don't whiz on
Don't whiz on the electric fence.
No! No! No! No! No!
Listen Qimo Sabe,
They're saying 'molon labe'
If you have a bit of sense,
Don't piss on the electric fence!
III
V,
We know what you mean. Don't worry about the "pro-gun" people that don't get it. I do.
Though pragmatism demands
That there be no line in the sand
And militancy makes you tense
Don't claim you stand for rights
If you say we must not fight
You best not whiz on the electric fence
Obviously, I'm no lyricist, and without a better idea of the rhythm, I'm in even worse shape to contribute, but that's the best I can do.
III
OK--you can hear the orginal here.
That might help get a better feel for the rhythmic structure.
I just wonder.... we have already seen the fed and local enforcers kill, kidnap, destroy, frame, and otherwise abuse gun owners. For those who keep saying "they haven't gone far enough yet", if this isn't a "war", what is?
A perhaps even dumber verse than my previous attempt:
If you must not speak
'Cause your knees are too weak
Of armed resistance
Then hide behind your Mama's skirt
And you better not squirt
Your bladder's contents on the electric fence
I'm a much better guitarist than songwriter
III
III - It's perfect.
I do not write my thoughts that well so this will mostly be some random thoughts.
Some have used a lot of space arguing "it is a threat". Who cares and what difference does it make? I don't know if you are a liberal, but it is a common tactic of liberals to argue in a different direction to change the discussion or derail it totally.
I am another old man that does not want to leave my decendents a tyranny. Due to physical ailments I fear a natural death would be very slow and awesomely painful. I can think of no more noble end than to go out trying to preserve freedom.
Mike V, I will be more than happy to cover your six or stand the line with you. Count me in.
For over three decades I have been wondering what it is going to take to bring resistance. If Vicki Weaver and Oolafson are not enough I don't know if there ever will be enough as long as we are imposed on gradually and the pragmatics have their way.
Over the years my area has had very little police abuse for the most part. Gradually though, I can see the abuse and misconduct starting to rear it's ugly head. Lately there have been a few police killings that have been questionable. One was an old woman that was mentally unstable. She had a knife and the officers could have easily avoided her and easily disarmed her. Instead they chose to kill her. She was old, black, and demented so who cared? (I was one of the few that did)
We have been rolling over to the tune of tyrannists and the pragmatics since 1934, over and over and over, expecting those who would deny us our liberties to either be satisified or to get tired of doing so and move on to something else. For 74 years we have been doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. THAT IS INSANITY!! The erosion of our personal liberty, safety, and sovereignty goes on unabated.
It is my underatanding that there are less than one million federal, state, and local law enforcement. Most are and will be occupied with their duties. A small number believe in personal liberty. Most thugs and bullies are in reality cowards and faced with retribution without backup, will run to hide behind Mama's skirt. I suspect three million, without terrible hardship, could overwhelm. The real question is, "what will the military do?" Recruits are taught to obey orders and for several years have been conditioned to fire on brother citizens. Hurricane Katrina showed that this was possible during the interview of an enlisted soldier. Officers are not as conditioned, but any that served long enough to be careerists would hesitate to ruin a retirement. Which president was it that ordered the Army to get rid of the "shanty town" encampment in DC? Those troops obeyed.
Kent sez: "For those who keep saying "they haven't gone far enough yet", if this isn't a "war", what is?
Sez me: Kent your point is well taken, but then what kind of war are we talking about AT THE MOMENT?
We are returning to the "Clintonista Cold War" mode of the mid to late 90s, I think. Unless you are yourself victimized, most would say the line has not been crossed to kick this thing into a hot war, yet. Unless.
I wonder what David Olofson would make of the contretemps amongst the "pragmatists" over my letter? I can guess.
I do know this, it is vital that we not surrender the moral high ground by firing a premature first shot. When we finally engage, it must be in response to an obvious bit of outlawry on the part of the "gang." We must be patient, and yet preparing at the same time. The sad truth is that if we were all as ready as we wish we were, the Feds would be considerably more circumspect and conflict could be avoided.
The "pragmatists" (which term I use until I find a better one) reject this, deny that their own inaction has encouraged the current leadership of the ATF to conduct business the way they do, yet I believe that to be the case.
-- Vanderboegh III
I don't know if this is the right place to post this, but here is a possible solution to the current in-fighting that is taking place within the RKBA crowd. Maybe someone will find it useful....
Exploiting the Tension of Opposing Views in the Pro-Gun Community to Implement the Hegelian Dialectic in Order to Advance Gun Rights
Introduction
I find it strange that no one has, as of yet, seen fit to exploit the benefits of the tension that exists between the two extremes of the pro-gun camp: the pragmatists and the absolutists. This tension is actually quite useful and can be the source of tremendous advances for our right to keep and bear arms if we will only make the right moves. If we fail to make the right moves, we will become our own worst enemies, and the enemy will be able to drive wedges between us and provoke internal fighting with impunity.
The right moves involve giving the enemy some of his own medicine: use the two extremes of the pro-gun camp to implement the Hegelian dialectic against our foes. This will allow the two extreme sides of pro-gunners to each do what they do best. The absolutists excel at demanding all of our rights and stirring up certain types of people to action, and the pragmatists excel at finding common ground and stirring up certain other types of people to action.
Summary of Hegelian dialectic
Short Version: The Hegelian dialectic is just a form of good cop/bad cop where the bad cop (absolutists) scares the intended victim (anti-gunners and politicians) and the good cop (pragmatists) protects the intended victim from the bad cop and convinces the victim that the good cop has a compromise solution that will fend off the bad cop. Of course, the compromise solution really is not a compromise at all and is exactly what both the good cop and the bad cop wanted all along: to advance their common agenda of expanding the right to keep and bear arms.
Implementation Details
As it stands, absolutists are doing things correctly by proposing solutions that seek to advance gun rights and that alarm some Americans. Unfortunately, pragmatists may be botching up their end of the program. However, this can be fixed. Don't despair!
The pragmatists are erroneously proposing that we keep the status quo in response to the demands of the absolutists and are also directly fighting with absolutists, thereby negating the opportunity to use the Hegelian Dialectic to our advantage. The pragmatists may want to propose a counter-solution to the absolutists' position that is less "extreme" but that still advances the gun rights cause forward from our current position, and they may want to avoid directly fighting with absolutists so as to avoid the appearance of dissension within the ranks. Of course, this goes both ways, and absolutists should avoid directly fighting with pragmatists.
Please note that pragmatists CANNOT advance our cause forward by fighting to maintain the status quo in response to the demands of the absolutists or by being afraid of what people think about absolutists. This is totally missing the point! We want people to feel at least some sense of fear and impending doom due to the demands of absolutists. The pragmatists should then rush in to save the day by proposing a new "moderate" solution that meets the demands of absolutists half-way. Everyone then breathes a sigh of relief that the pragmatists saved the day from the scary absolutists who didn't get their way - this time. But everyone better watch out because next time, next time, the absolutists might just get their way if we don't have the pragmatists who are willing to save us through negotiation and compromise. The pragmatists then parade around and release press releases and get lots of media coverage about how they are the great compromisers who are protecting Americans.
The worst case scenario is that we force the enemy into a position of impasse where he is unable to advance against us because we are using the same Hegelian dialectic techniques as he is. This breaks his momentum for new gun control and will create new, unexpected opportunities for attacks against him. We might even score some big wins down the road. It also makes it harder for government to launch direct attacks against us because if they are willing to attack us when pragmatists are working so hard to make compromises with absolutists, we can show that the government really does have an agenda against all law-abiding gun owners. This can effectively tie government's hands and limit the opportunity for enforcement actions against gun owners because government does not want to be seen as a bully.
Do Not Despair When the Media Portrays Part of the Gun Movement as Extremists: It is an Opportunity
The more that the media portrays absolutists as extreme elements within society, the more power this hands to the pragmatists to use the Hegelian dialectic as a counter to the perceived extremes of the absolutists. If the pragmatists understand this, they can use the Hegelian dialectic to move us toward more gun freedoms. However, the pragmatists must be wary of infiltrators who will lead them down dead ends and dangerous alleys and try to foment conflict with absolutists.
If gun supporters fail to understand the benefits of the tension within its ranks and how it can be used to advance our common cause, we will become victims of our enemies who will use the tension to drive a wedge between the pragmatists and absolutists, thereby weakening our overall position and turning us against ourselves. The choice is up to us. I humbly suggest that we use the enemies' own tactics against him.
NOTE: there is nothing wrong with healthy debate between absolutists and pragmatists. In fact, it is quite healthy and quite necessary to cultivate new ideas. However, open fighting and hostilities between the two sides is absolutely (see, there is a place for absolutes) not permitted. It may even be prudent to assume that some of those who are stirring up the internal conflict are doing so intentionally. Food for thought....
I see this all the time: gun owners calling other gun owners "extremists" or "nutjobs" for expressing an opinion different from theirs. Since when is "freedom" an extremist concept?
There is, or should be, room for a "diversity of tactics" - you don't have to like MY tactic, you just have to get out of the way and let me do it. You can go off and do your own thing, too, any way you want.
Isn't that what "freedom" is all about, anyway?
This has led me to develop two aphorisms:
"Every gun owner is my brother"
and
"Your gun is OK, it's just not my gun"
I hope that these concepts resonate with most people. We cannot continue to rip on each other, just because of the kind of gun we own, or the tactics we advocate.
David? That was an exceptional writ. Very moving, and so full of absolute truth it moves people who really beleive in the founding principles.
Principles that really mean something for all, not just the Majority.
I know I am not perfect.
I just know that there's something We're all missing out on, and so are our children.
And the abuses are just growing more freqeunt.
"when I see them dead in a ditch, riddled with ATF gunfire,"
Dying in the company of heros just doesn't sound all that bad provided the end goal was attained.
I like Mike's book so far and I liked Unintended Consequences. Funny thing too, I've never plotted to kill or blow up any Federal agent or Agency nor start a civil war nor do I intend to anymore than people who read Clancy novels intend to emulate them. Cautionary tales are good stories and have a purpose.
No American wants to kill a fellow American, even a criminal most times from what I've heard from my friends in law enforcement who have had to do it. It's not the goal of gun ownership. But it's not the intended goal of government to be jailers of innocent people either. Seems sometimes the people in D.C. forget the latter.
Here is my take on this issue, and I really don't give a shit if people disagree with it.
Mike Vanderboegh did not communicate a threat unless one fits the category of the requirement. What was the requirement? “further restrict our God-given liberty” Then it may be a threat to this type of person. Basically what he stated was the truth that so many supposed pro-rights/pro-gun people are unwilling to do.
His estimate of 3% I fell is just a tad bit under what would be the numbers that would make a stand. I believe that around 5% or so will make that stand, based on many people’s opinions and what is said. Of the 80ish million gun owners in America I believe that a full 40% will give up their guns without even a whimper if it came down to it. If you don't think they will give up their guns with out even a second thought then just take a look at the locations in America that have banned some form of personal firearms.
Morton Grove Ill. comes to mind right now, and just how many turned in their evil handguns when the city banned them? There were a lot that turned them in, about 40% of the gun owners. Some place around 15-25% took their handguns out of the city for storage elsewhere. The remainder just hid them in their houses or where ever.
The reasoning behind the figures is that around 40% of gun owners are not true gun owners and are unwilling to make a stand for our rights. They see a varying beliefs on the gun issues, such as we have a right to hunting rifles but not hand guns, our maybe they believe that the right only extends to flint locks and not current day weapons. Some actually believe that the RKBA is for the government military and the ex-military that has already served. With so many varying beliefs in the gun community we can see just why some are irate as statements like what Mike V. made.
What was said was a forewarning nothing more. He did not even advocate killing LEA’s or military. What he said was, are you proposing to come yourself, or do you want someone else's son or daughter in federal service to take the risk?” which is a common thought process among the socialists in America. The precept is that they will not risk their lives but others should do so for the common good of all. In other words let someone else die instead of me.
Regardless of what one wishes to believe there are a % of American people out here who are tired of the socialist agenda of citizen disarmament. And the fuse is lit already all that is needed is for it to touch the powder them civil war will happen. A lot of us are not arm cheer Patriots/Solders/Freedom Fighters. I have served for 21 years in our Army as a combatant, all the way from Vietnam through the first Gulf war. I got nothing to loose by making a stand with Mike V. but I do have all in the world to gain. The thought of my Grandchildren having to live as subjects in a socialist state pisses me off to no end.
Yes I do have Grandchildren 3 right now and my oldest son who is in the Army now is trying for a 4th which I hope is a girl so they will try again for a boy and I can have lots of grand kids.
How ever I also believe that Americans should use all means possible to avoid a war. By using the courts and Congress. If all else fails then no other alternative is left but to fight and die. If you go back to the beginning of our war for independence you can see the people here used all means available to them before the finial straw and armed conflict started. For several years emissaries were sent to England to no avail. What is happening right now is the emissaries are being sent. We get a small appeasement for a short time then we get shafted again. The time draws near for stopping the attempts at peaceable resolutions and for people to take up arms for physical action.
I use the nickname of opaww because it is what my first Granddaughter called me, not from fear of retribution for anyone. So with further ado I shall type my name just for shits and grins.
James R. (opaww) Misenhimer
Radcliff, KY.
P.S. I know I made some spelling mistakes here but my spell checker did not catch them. I apologize ahead of time for bad grammar, punctuations, and spelling
Just posted my response to the charges above at Snowflake's place (and my observations on threats), with this afterward:
You know, I gotta thank you Snowflake. If you hadn't had a public poultry defectation moment, my letter wouldn't be all over the Internet. I need to hire you as a distribution expert for my upcoming novella. ;-) Yessirree, bob. Best little letter I ever wrote. BIG ;-)
-- Mike Vanderboegh
Constitutional Electrician (Apprentice)
Leader of a Merry Band of Three Percenters
and unofficial guru to the Spisey Street Irregulars.
III
Also, Opaw's letter above reminds me that I'd like to thank all you folks, including those who disagree me, for sharing your thoughts and beliefs. It's the only way a writer knows he's reaching people. And we will only triumph in the Founder's cause if we all pull together.
As for the BC's of the world, I'd also like to thank them for their punk threats. In their own way, they make my points better than I could without them.
Vanderboegh
III
perhaps some of cooper's words can provide the convincing moderate explanation which pragmatists want to hear:
"fear" is not a good word to use. fear is a word to lose by. our wartime president told us that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself, and this is still true. if liberty and light lose the struggle for the world, it will be because we succumbed to the fear of evil rather than to its power.
individually, we do not bear arms because we are afraid. we bear arms as a declaration of capacity. an armed man can cope, either in the city or in the wilderness, and because he is armed he is not afraid.
this is the root of hoplophobia (fear of firearms). the hoplophobe fears and, yes, hates us because we are not afraid. we are overwhelmingly "other" than he, and in a way that emphasizes his affliction. there is not much room for compromise here. we cannot expect reason to carry weight, but we can meet propaganda with propaganda, and our task is easier because our position is demonstrably the right one. and most people are not complete fools.
Must say that reading over all the comments has been very helpful in focusing my thoughts on this issue, especially those remarks of Nezumi.
Somehow our political infrastructure and the bureaucratic army that supports it have become infested with true hoplophobes and those that will espouse that position for political gain. Just a fact of life and easily proven by observation.
To this element the mere fact that citizens are running around armed is already the threat. Access to lethal force by the common herd animals is just not acceptable to their world view. It interferes with their plans for a safe and happy world (under their benevolent domination of course).
All Mike V. has done is present the concept that there may in fact be "unintended consequences" to their solution to us as an irritation to be removed from their great society.
Will close with a quote from the character Malcolm Reynolds in the movie 'Serenity,' "as for me, I intend to misbehave!"
I personally think when it comes to this issue the only logical way is to be is aggressive. All the arguing in the world wont stop those who want to get rid of gun owners. Say exactly how you feel at all times. If you come to take our guns we will kill you! Thats exactly what gun owners should be saying. Who gives a rats ass what the PC crowd thinks. They'll be looking for us to protect them during the next national emergency anyway. I have quite a few friends in the military. Some ex rangers, etc. We talk a lot about this potential situation. They always say people dont realize how much damge a mere 100 men could do with knowledge that they have. They would bring the country to their knees rather quickly. And they are very willing to do this if it comes to that. With 5% of the gun owning population fighting back whomever faces that stands no chance in hell.
When the tipping point is reached I think we will all know it. And when that day comes I will join that 3% to stand up for my rights
I am beginning to understand how our forefathers felt in 1773
Uh, my titles above should have read:
Constitutional Electrician (Apprentice)
Alleged Leader of a Merry Band of Three Percenters
and unofficial guru to the Sipsey Street Irregulars.
It's been a long night. Even so, I think I'll stop at three titles. On official documents that ask for my occupation I usually write "Itinerant Scribbler" occasionally adding "without portfolio."
III
I raised the question with my wife last night, and she pointed out something that I don't think I've seen anywhere else. She noted the operational security issue of publishing such a letter, saying that it put Mike on the radar of those who would take away the guns by force.
She wasn't familiar with his other work, which would do the same thing, but it did strike me at the time as something that should be thought of from time to time.
Everyone has to fight this battle in their own way.
My preferred way is not quite so direct as Mike's letter to the editor.
I prefer to remind people just exactly how the American Revolution got started when responding to something as Mike did. The serves to correct the inadequate history education many people have today, and get the point across that persecuting gun-owners might have serious consequences. And it helps to legitimize our grievence by casting we gun-owners in the same light as the revolutionay patriots of 1775.
Also, I would have been a lot happier with Heston and the NRA (I'm a LIFE member now almost 40 years) if he had held up an AR-15 (or MIA or Garand) and said "from my cold dead hands".
Scott
Matt, we've discussed "homegrown terrorists" from time to time here on several occasions. I've said before I would'nt be surprised if I was on a watch list, and MV has probably been on one for even longer.
I have no proof of this, of course, but it does not seem that far-fetched when you consider some of our public stances and interactions.
We're aware this is a real possibility and we live with it and keep on doing what we do anyway.
"We're aware this is a real possibility and we live with it and keep on doing what we do anyway."
Exactly.
III
Things will get worse with McCain.
Things will get much worse with Obama. And that is why I am voting for Obama. For things will only get worse with McCain but they need to get much worse for us to survive as a nation.
Of course a statement like that needs an explanation. And I will do so in the form of an analogy. Do you know how to cook a frog? Well, if you put it in a pot of boiling water the frog will quickly jump out. But if you put a frog in a pot of water that is warm and turn up the heat gradually up to boiling the frog will just sit there not even realizing it is being boiled alive.
Obama is the one who puts the frog into the hot water and McCain is the one who turns up the heat gradually. With Obama his extremism will cause a backlash so great that America will start electing good leaders to oppose him. It happened in 1980 and it happened in 1994. And it will happen again.
But McCain he will really be the death of the Republican Party. As I said above things will get worse with McCain and therefore he and his party will get the blame. And then America will elect a Democrat in 2012. And if history has shown us anything it has shown that the Democratic Candidate has been getting increasingly extreme. So I can’t tell you who the Democrats will put up that year but I can tell you that person will be as extreme if not more extreme than Obama. So, how long are we putting off having an Obama-like candidate? Four Years?
And meanwhile McCain has shown that he wants to drive conservatives and conservatism away from the Republican Party. For those of us who believes that conservatism is the only solution to our country’s problems, it is unacceptable that neither of the two major parties represents conservative values.
So, I am left with the ultimate act of “tough love”. Not to say there aren’t hard times ahead for there is but that is true with McCain as well. But at least with Obama there is hope that things will get better after him. With McCain all hope is lost.
"Another principled freak" checking in.
The worst names I've been called have come from NRA lifers who feel that I betray them by not toeing thier line. To me they are compromisers and appeasers, but they don't like being called on it.
Better late than never I suppose.
My 2 cents — for what it's worth.
Since the comments were so long I skimmed them. I read Mike's letter and I don't see a problem. At worst case, Mike's opinion, bluntly put. Best case — a sober warning to someone who is obviously not thinking beyond the end of his nose.
A couple of somebody's stated that it was no worse then the statements and writings of the Founders — true.
However, we have a society in which a great number cannot decide what gender they are. We have a society that cannot handle the fact that individuals die in wars. And that ultimately, shooting wars are fought because someone didn't realize where the line was. We have a society that would collapse if America suffered a loss in Iraq or Afghanistan comparable to the Romans at Cannae in 216 BC.
In short, we have society of wannabe grownups, totally unconnected with reality.
I don't agree with Mike's use of fiction to make his points. But I do agree with the points he is trying to make. We simply have a society that is not mature enough to handle those points.
Death and dying are very much a part of life — some folks need to get over it and grow up.
No society has ever achieved freedom or dignity for the common man without violence or the realistic threat of violence. No society has ever maintained that dignity or liberty once its citizens lose their willingness to protect them with real violence and to make that fact known. It does no good in the avoidance of violence to keep it secret that it is a possibility and more importantly a probability.
I defy any "pragmatist" to show me one instance in recorded history that runs counter to that proposition.
I will tell you up front, that challenge is a trap, so go ahead. Give me one.
The realistic threat of violence is preferable to the actual application of violence. The realistic threat of violence when heeded, can prevent actual violence. Pragmatists are the encouragers of actual violence. Their weak, run and hide, hedge your bet, wear a coat with both colors and buttons inside and outside approach encourages the despots to believe they can win at little or no personal costs.
History has proven this wrong time and again because despots are as ignorant as pragmatists and have no grounding in history or principle. In other words, pragmatists are the people who blur the location of "where the line is" to which Paul W.Davis referred, and make its transgression inevitable and the subsequent spilling of blood inevitable.
That they do not know this is not a function of naivete or different philosophical bent. It is not even true that they do not know this. They know it, they just are prepared to avoid risk at all costs and be good little soldiers for whichever side wins, after the battles are over of course and they took no actual part.
I will quote myself here, to further the point.
"The realistic threat of violence is preferable to the actual application of violence. The realistic threat of violence when heeded, can prevent actual violence."-straightarrow
Just think how much you pragmatists are willing to surrender because of the realistic threat of violence against you. You know it is realistic because you have seen examples of the actual application of violence against innocent people for decades now.
Thus the realistic threat of violence against you has kept you from exercising any attributes necessary to a free man. Why do you think it won't work the other way?
You know it will, you just don't want to be involved. Then you will crawl out of the woodwork and loudly proclaim your previous support for whichever side wins.
The enemies of freedom have absolutely no problem using violence to accomplish their unholy goals.
Why should Americans be ashamed to speak of resorting to violence when all else has failed (and it has), to defend precious liberty?
They day they are met - again - with well-disciplined rifle fire will be a great day.
Molon Labe.
"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.... While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security." Samuel Adams
There is virtue in having principles and sticking to them — no matter the cost. There is no virtue in "pragmatism."*
Those who have no principles, hate those who do.
* I agree with SA: "pragmatism" is merely another term for an unprincipled coward.
BTW, SAC's motto was "Peace is our profession." Surely it cannot be lost on everyone why we said that?
Mike's words, as usual, challenge me to think. Now that it has been a few days, I realize there is a point (upon which some have touched) and a question that needs to be answered.
Mike provided an answer to an, "or what?" If his answer is so controversial, how come no one is asking for the answer from the disarmers? That is bound to create a fracture in the disarmer community that would dwarf the shock wave from the Honest Mike Incident.
What are the two possible answers? If they say nothing, then there is no consequence. This will annoy the neck-stompers to no end, and when they spell out their intentions, we'll be handed an enormous amount of political capital.
Also: To be fair, Mike has already asked this question of the useful idiot, but I doubt an answer is forthcoming.
An excellent post and I agree with you completely. Many of the pragmatists (and I consider myself to be among them) comported themselves disgracefully when reacting to Mike's LTE.
However, methinks you and the other absolutists need to take a close look in the mirror when saying that we pragmatists just "want it our way".
I used to read you and other "absolutists" avidly. Even though I didn't agree wholeheartedly, I think you did...and still do...bring some important points and considerations into the argument.
However, I stopped because I got tired of being constantly harangued and beat about the head and shoulders (not me personally, but in general) about my lack of contributions to the fight for our rights because I wasn't acting in an approved WoG manner. You seemed to have decided that what I was doing didn't count because it wasn't what you wanted me to do.
In other words: both sides are guilty of self-righteousness...we pragmatists haven't cornered the market. We can all learn something from this "event"...as long as you fully intended the premise of your post to be a two way street and not just a case of "removing the mote" from the "pragmatist's" eye.
Sailorcurt, you malign yourself, I think. You are not the type of pragmatist most of us are describing. You are more like us than you realize.
We have nothing against being practical and working as peacefully as is possible to reachieve the citizenship of free men. But we have a sticking point. So do you. I have read enough of you to have been exposed to that fact.
The pragmatists we are talking about are the ones who never see any time at all to "do" something other than ask permission and accept denial if they do not receive what is rightfully theirs. You are not one of those.
We are not what those particular pragmatists have described. We don't want physical conflict, we don't encourage it. But it is our strategy of last resort. Unless the other side knows that, we have no chance of avoiding physical confrontation. We prefer to avoid it, ergo we try desperately to make it known what egregious overstep is apt to lead to.
I am truly sorry you think so lowly of us. I and others here think very highly of you. As I said above, I think you erroneously maligned yourself. Being reasonable is to be desired, we believe we are. And though you think your way is so very different from ours, we (ok,I, but I suspect others also) do not see it that way.
Sailorcurt,
On a battlefield, there is always need of a competent and willing reserve to plug the gaps if the line is in danger of collapse. Not everyone is cut out to be a scout, or a point man, or cavalry feeling for the enemy's flanks and weaknesses. Nor is everyone cut out for the deeper game of intelligence and psywar. We all have our place. Snowflake and BC and their confrers however are worthless REMFs. The battle will never reach them and they will never come up to it. As my son told me during his first tour of Iraq, "Dad, I've discovered there are two kinds of people in the world, those who are willing to go outside the wire and those who aren't. I'm one that is willing."
So, Sailorcurt, I suspect are you. Well, those of us at the tip of spear will break a hole in the enemy's line, y'all just be ready to support, and exploit, the breakthrough.
This probably won't be a popular opinion here, but I don't see Sebastian as being any less courageous or principled than the rest of us--certainly not less so than me--although his perspective is very different from mine, to the point that I often don't really comprehend his positions.
Sailor, you're more than OK in my book.
Sailorcurt: However, I stopped because I got tired of being constantly harangued and beat about the head and shoulders (not me personally, but in general) about my lack of contributions to the fight for our rights because I wasn't acting in an approved WoG manner. You seemed to have decided that what I was doing didn't count because it wasn't what you wanted me to do.
I've seen you make similar comments here when you left and on other sites. Frankly, I'm baffled.
I can't think of one instance where I personally told you anything even remotely resembling an attack on your lack of contributions. If others have done so in comments, all I can say is I try to keep a very loose rein and not dictate--something obscene, something threatening, a lie, a purposeful nasty and personal attack by a troll, yeah, I've gotten involved. I'm the guy who puts in untold hours of work, and I'm not going to let some jackass come in here and urinate at will just to make a mess. And I've never insisted that you agree with me--but I do insist on the right of rebuttal, and sometimes it gets vehement.
We're big boys. This is a hot button issue. It's going to happen.
That doesn't mean alternative viewpoints are suppressed.
Just this week I presented a proposal from a reader I disagreed with, and he stated as much in his post. He'd emailed me and I told him I didn't endorse his idea. He was insistent that I was being shortsighted, so I figured the most productive use of my time was not to debate him in email, but let him have his say and allow others to weigh in. Show me one other gun rights (or any other kind of) advocacy blog that allows stuff like that.
Conversely, one blog where I have been viciously attacked is one where one of the contributors here has been banned--even though what he said was nowhere on the level of calling the site operator scum who he wouldn't piss on if he were on fire, which was said about me, or fanatsizing about his bullet riddled body in a ditch, again, targeted at me. I personally think that site operator is using a double standard by allowing such attacks against others, but not milder attacks on himself. I operate on the opposite principle--I will tighten the reins when I see vicious anonymous attacks against any of my guests but will tolerate a hell of a lot more when directed against me.
A fair reading of WoG and of my past advocacy work will show numerous attempts to work within the legal, political and "hearts and minds" venues. Over a decades worth. Yet when I work within the system, for instance, trying to present Wayne Fincher's side of things and help raise funds for his legal defense, these same system operators characterize that as an "obsession" and try to characterize me as a hypocrite for not being willing to call a raid down upon myself--as if I've ever endorsed anyone doing that.
I've never dismissed legal/political/journalistic efforts as valid outlets and have probably done more in these arenas than the vast majority of my critics. For a lot longer. And I've never advocated (or allowed here) intitiation of force against any government agency or making threats against any individual--something those who blithely accuse me and others here of just that always seem to come up dry on when challenged for specifics.
That's all I really have to say--I'm not going to apologize for being firm in my convictions or thinking what I'm doing is the right thing. If I didn't, I'd have a lot better ways to spend my time.
As for acting in a WOG approved manner, if you do something I like, I'll applaud it. If you do something I don't, I'll say so, and why. And you're free to do the same.
If that's not good enough, sorry. It's the most I'm prepared to do for you.
If I had to make sure I've got consensus from everyone who visits here, these pages would be blank.
About the most I can guarantee you is, I'll never let an anonymopus coward call you a f*****g a*****e, as just happened to me the other day over at the gentlemen's club.
I've been reading Mike V. and WoG for some time now. I've also been reading those who attacked Mike. But not much anymore. I have limited time, and spend it carefully.
We need the full range of resistance to those who would destroy the Bill of Rights (etc). Mike wrote strategies that I had not clearly thought out, giving me more options and techniques to resist. Thanks.
Me? I'm not so courageous as to publicly criticize the JBT's. I have written signed letters to legislators.
I'm getting old enough that I think I would squeeze off a few from an M1 if things get bad. There are a lot worse ways to go.
I have noticed that no one, not even a pragmatist has taken up my challenge and provided just one instance in recorded history where the common man has benefited without the realistic threat of or the prudent application of violence.
To quote a friend of mine, loosely, "When has rewarding bad behavior ever resulted in good behavior?"
That's because they can't Straightarrow, and they know it. Rewarding bad behavior always yields more bad behavior. Anyone who has ever raised a kid, or even worked around animals knows that. Sadly, the principle doesn't seem to change much with so-called adults.
So long as the citizens of this country keep rewarding the unconstitutional behavior of government officials at any and all levels, we will continue to get the same bad behavior we have seen for quite some time now. In fact, it will get worse, it always does when it is unchecked by the belt or the switch applied to the backside. I would prefer we not limit it only to the rear end, but liberally apply it from the knees to the shoulders like I got growing up.
That is a major factor of why I behave so appropriately now :).
Post a Comment