I have, of late, gotten in the habit of scouring the internet for anything I can find of the writings of Mike Vanderboegh. For those unfamiliar with him, that link will lead you to much compelling material. In reading that material, it should not take at all long to realize that Mr. Vanderboegh is not the least bit shy in making clear that he believes that there is a very serious threat to not "just" gun rights, but to our very Republic--and that he is not alone in being utterly unwilling to give said Republic up without a fight. When I say "fight," I'm not writing metaphorically--I mean civil war.
I tend not to give up on my wishful thinking easily, and am still holding out hope that the storm he sees on the horizon might somehow pass us by--but I'm not counting on it. Speaking personally, if the storm does hit, I don't expect, as a paraplegic of no real means, to see much more than the beginning of it. Frankly, as a man of no particular courage, I should probably be grateful for that fact. My personal stake in how it all turns out in the end is thus somewhat limited, but I still desperately want a free America to emerge from what I fear will be the ashes.
The point to which I'm making my slow, tortuous way is that Mr. Vanderboegh has submitted a letter to the editor of the Capital Times (Madison, WI). The letter is a somewhat "in-your-face" challenge to advocates of measures like mandatory gun registration. Here's an excerpt:
Joe Bialek from Cleveland proposes the licensing and registration of all weapons currently in civilian hands. My question is, how exactly do you propose to do that, Joe?This letter, as one might imagine, doesn't sit well with the entire gun blogging community.
There are some of us "cold dead hands" types, perhaps 3 percent of gun owners, who would kill anyone who tried to further restrict our God-given liberty. Don't extrapolate from your own cowardice and assume that just because you would do anything the government told you to do that we would.
I have to ask those who object to his letter, though--what would they prefer he do, rather than issue a fair warning of the consequences of pursuing an agenda of more and more oppressive gun regulation? Should he go straight to killing the JBTs without making the attempt to warn them back from the precipice? If there is any hope of deterring the Enemy, is that not better than simply going straight to the killing?
To my way of thinking, Mr. Vanderboegh's voice is one of the sanest in this discussion. Then again, I'm not sure my endorsement does him any favors.
Stumble it!
14 comments:
As with any Gun Control Advocate, there is more to the story, than what is stated. Joe Bialeks thoughts on Gun registration, is only an example of His true agenda.
Dear Editor:
The letter is in response to the articles covering the Supreme Court's June ruling that clarified Americans' right to own a gun for self-defense. It has once again sparked the debate about gun control.
The second amendment of the United States Constitution states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard, whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded.
The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders. In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these. Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key. Furthermore, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons, several innocent victims would not have died at restaurants, universities and shopping malls.
Joe Bialek
Cleveland, Ohio
Mr. Bialek wishes to determine the "need" for possesion of firearms, overlooking the real meaning of the 2nd--nowhere do any of the Founding Fathers refer to "the needs of the people"---they refer to "the right of the people". There is no "Need to speech" just the freedom to do so. Once we allow the determination of "need" to enter the equation---who will determine this need? Do you really need that SUV to go to work--The right's of the people overrule anyones determination of need--needs constantly change--right's do not--2 years ago I needed 2 bucks to buy a gallon of gas--today I need 4
Thanks, Tennreb. I had looked for the letter of Bialek's that prompted Mr. Vanderboegh's letter, but couldn't find it.
The truly sad part of the commentary is the number of so-called gun bloggers who are scared shitless of inflaming the beast. I guess, they somehow think it not so terrible to be eaten by a happy monster as an angry one. Go figure.
As tennreb pointed out, the "Doctrine of Need" is fallacious at its root: it assumes that someone else has the authority over you to determine what you "need" and what you don't.
As for the bloggers who are aghast at Vanderboegh's response, they are the sheeple: the keep your head down, shuffle along, don't cause trouble and maybe, just maybe, they'll leave us alone types. Sometimes, these guys are our worst enemies, since they will give up their fellow gun owners as long as it doesn't create problems for *them*.
How do you instill heroism in such people?
Well Mr. Bialek since you are so keen on registration (and I'm sure you would like that to lead to confiscation) why don't you come knock on my door and see if you can register my weapons.
People like you will not be long for this world when the SHTF. The best we can hope for is that you and your kind are culled from our union when the shooting starts.
Nimrod45 you can't instill heroism in cowards. Some people would rather bow down and lick the hand that feeds them than fight and die for their freedoms. Of course, these same people happily enjoy the freedoms that other people have fought and died for. They are the worst kind of hypocrites.
We gun owners as a whole are a law abiding lot. Which is why our rights have been taken from us, bit by bit. We just want to be left alone to enjoy our hobby. We don't want to have to cause a ruckus and stir shit up. That's not our style. But there is only so much we can take. Push us far enough and the consequences will be disastrous. How in the world can anyone think that pissing off millions of gun owners can be a good thing? Sooner or later we are gong to say enough is enough and start pushing back. Think of how many millions of gun owners there are in the US. If just one half of one percent of them were willing to take it to the extreme there would be tens of thousands of dead federal agents littering the streets.
I for one hope we can step back from the precipice. If we can't, then then I pray only that my aim be true when the time comes.
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands,
hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -H.L. Mencken
I'm not much in the mood for an argument on the subject, and with 161 comments over at Sebastian's place, I'm not going to slog through them to see what's been argued already.
But I will say that I think there's value in having the blissninnies know that there is a line in the sand, even if Sebastian isn't comfortable drawing it.
... it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties ...
-- James Madison
I don't know exactly what "point" he was referring to when he wrote that we're not there yet, but rather than door-to-door registration, we've already seen the goons skip that altogether and go straight to confiscation. Or has everyone forgotten Katrina? Hell, as you mentioned in the Bouril case, they're effectively confiscating (and then destroying) guns even when all the hoops have been jumped through. And in CA, if you're caught with an "assault weapon" that you didn't properly register, they'll confiscate that. Lessee, how many jurisdictions can we name where they'll confiscate firearms. I think it's safe to say we're past the "registration" phase in a lot of areas.
And I truly have appx. zero concern for others' unfounded fears. For that matter, I can't say I have much concern for someone's fear of what could happen in the course of defending our rights. If that attitude had been employed in 1775, where would we be now?
Well said, Jed (that wasn't meant to come out as a silly rhyme, even if that was the end result).
In reply to Jed's comment I would posit that "that point" will never be reached for Sebastian. I may be wrong and I hope I am, but I just do not believe he has any sticking points, except those that could potentially expose him to risk.
Some of us prefe the risk of liberty, some of us do not.
I would be interested to know at what point he or Bitter started attacking the character or intelligence of those who disagree their brand of "pragmatism".
Only if you decide you want to wade through all the comments. I am not welcome there anymore. I fight back.
Sebastian (and others) have more faith in "the system" than I do, and perhaps less faith in the righteous anger of a few armed, determined "absolutists" to convince the government to back off, but I do imagine he has limits to what he'll tolerate--I'm just not sure what those limits are.
By the way, I think leaving some uncertainty about exactly where one's limits are is a good policy--because otherwise, the other side will know exactly how far it can push before being pushed back.
All the government needs to know about the "line in the sand" is that they're rapidly approaching it (and that they won't like the other side of it).
I'm one of the ones who has been saying that Mr. Vanderboegh's letter could have been better worded. However, I'll limit myself (for now, anyway), to the question posted:
"I have to ask those who object to his letter, though--what would they prefer he do, rather than issue a fair warning of the consequences of pursuing an agenda of more and more oppressive gun regulation? Should he go straight to killing the JBTs without making the attempt to warn them back from the precipice? If there is any hope of deterring the Enemy, is that not better than simply going straight to the killing?"
IMO, the answer is 'yes'.
What would I prefer he do?
Publicly, he should be working on 'winning hearts and minds', on proving that gun-owners are generally trustworthy, responsible members of the community who are willing to put the good of their neighbors over their own pride and safety. Isn't that what we all want to believe? Isn't that what makes the difference between a good officer and a thug?
Mr. Vanderboegh's letter does not portray that. It portrays him as a dangerous, prideful, aggressive person willing to throw his neighbors under the train to pursue his own ideology (at least, it does if you don't have any background in gun rights, which the majority of that paper's readers won't). That's simply bad PR.
Privately, Mr. Vanderboegh should prepare himself for the worst in a responsible and safe manner, so should he be right, he is prepared to deal with it appropriately. But there's no reason for him to advertise that, and quite a few reasons he shouldn't.
"Should he go straight to killing the JBTs without making the attempt to warn them back from the precipice? "
If the country is truly that bad, yes, he should. Warning them gives them time to prepare, and it does not dissuade them.
I'm assuming you know your history. I'm assuming you know stories about revolutionary heroes like George Washington and the Swamp Fox. Did these people win by advertising when and how they'd attack? Did they line up in nice, even lines, in bright red shirts on the battle field and fight 'honorably'?
No, they hid in the forests, attacked from ambush, destroyed supply lines, and otherwise went with the 'any chair in a bar fight' approach (within ethical, but not necessarily honorable) limits.
And that is why they won. Because they did not concede advantages to the enemy for the sake of their own pride.
"If there is any hope of deterring the Enemy, is that not better than simply going straight to the killing?"
There is no hope of deterring this enemy via threats of force. They WANT threats of force, because it gives them political currency. Remember WWII? Remember Pearl Harbor? Why did FDR permit the US to get bombed when he knew it was coming? Because threats of invasion translate directly to more power to those in charge.
Plus, Mr. Vanderboegh has been very kind to point out that he's only a threat to those who enter his home. How kind of him. So the people who make the DECISIONS aren't affected by them, except they get more power. It's the poor schlob with a 9-5 job who is facing bullets. It's pretty clear that Mr. Bialek is not being directly threatened, so how is that a genuine threat? His kids aren't police officers.
I published this elsewhere, but basically, threats are a poor idea.
If they're not taken seriously, they make you look like a dangerous animal, and that the target either needs additional sympathy from the general public, or the target need the power to put you in your place.
If they are taken seriously, they advertise to the world your MO. Now the government knows to expect armed resistance and a defensive posture, but that you'll never go out of your way to attack anyone else, and you won't fire until they enter your property. How is it possibly a good idea, strategically or tactically, to intentionally give away your battle plans?
So... Yes. I agree with Mr. Vanderboegh's sentiments. I think he is factually correct, and that it is good he is correct. However, I think his being direct about it did no one any favors, and certainly didn't accomplish his intended goals. For someone like him, who writes so much about 'unintended consequences', I don't know that he considered the consequences of his own actions. It's behavior like his, like Black Panthers holding armed demonstrations on the steps of the Capitol, that give ammunition to our enemies.
Publicly, he should be working on 'winning hearts and minds', on proving that gun-owners are generally trustworthy, responsible members of the community who are willing to put the good of their neighbors over their own pride and safety.
Frankly, I'm not much of one for asking--much less demanding that individuals sacrifice their safety for the "greater good." As such, I'm not going to try to present an image of someone "willing to put the good of [my] neighbors over [my] own pride and safety."
I don't read Mr. Vanderboegh's letter as advocating civil war, or even (explicitly) threatening to personally participate in one. Instead, he has made the statement that there will be bloody consequences of continued attacks on the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
Privately, Mr. Vanderboegh should prepare himself for the worst in a responsible and safe manner, so should he be right, he is prepared to deal with it appropriately. But there's no reason for him to advertise that, and quite a few reasons he shouldn't.
I get the impression he has prepared himself, and I further get the impression that there are plenty of folks in the government who already know.
There is no hope of deterring this enemy via threats of force.
If you say so.
I'm not too good with fancy words,so I'll just talk plain.
I don't know what has to happen to stop the erosion of our 2A rights,but I for 1 am tired of this shit.If we have a RIGHT to "keep and bear",then the freakin' government better back off!!!
"Sebastian (and others) have more faith in "the system" than I do, and perhaps less faith in the righteous anger of a few armed, determined "absolutists" to convince the government to back off, but I do imagine he has limits to what he'll tolerate--I'm just not sure what those limits are." -Kurt
Yes, they certainly do. They have faith that by proclaiming their willingness to never find a sticking point past which they can't be pushed that they will be exposed to no risk. They are fools.
Kevin V. writes:
I've been following your latest series of posts on this topic with great interest, because, as with much of what you write about, this particular issue is one that transformed me from a leftist to a traditionalist who believes strongly that race does matter.
I remember when I was in college hearing of a Stanford student named Amy Biehl who had been killed by a black crowd in one of the townships in South Africa. She had gone there to help. Since my roommate at the time was a South African graduate student, I had been receiving a great education about current events there. Even though he was a liberal, he explained to me why Biehl's activities were near suicidal in nature.
It was the television reports that got to me. I remember very clearly watching the ABC News reports on the trial of the men who had stoned and stabbed Biehl to death as she begged for her life. The courtroom was packed with the relatives and friends of the accused, who had to be admonished by the judge over and over to maintain order during the proceedings. The ABC newsman focused on one dramatic event during that day's testimony. As a witness for the prosecution described in detail Biehl's begging while a knife was being driven into her chest down to the hilt, the black women in the crowd began to laugh and perform a mocking ululating while a few performed mock begging motions. The black men yowled in glee and the entire courtroom broke out into hysterics as the black crowd mocked this white girl's final moments.
Sitting in the courtroom, fresh from lily-white and very wealthy Newport Beach, California, were Biehl's parents, Linda and Peter Biehl. The news report then cut to an interview of the parents after the day's testimony, in which they declared that understood the anger of the crowd and that their fondest hope was that their daughter's murder trial would lead to an opportunity for reconciliation and forgiveness. It was seeing this despicable reaction that made me realize that what I was seeing around me in Berkeley was, in fact, true: there is no black depravity against whites that white liberals will not excuse or forgive. We have it coming. Even our own daughters have it coming.
In case you think that this was an instance of shell-shocked parents not thinking clearly, I should note that the Biehls have gone on to form a charity, the Amy Biehl Foundation, which "continues Amy's work in South Africa." The website of Beyond Intractability, which describes itself as a site dedicated to finding "more constructive approaches to destructive conflict," has this report on Linda Biehl from December, 2005:
Eventually, Peter and Linda quit their jobs in California and started a South African organization, running after-school programs and small businesses in the townships.
"We had already determined that Amy was killed during a very violent time, but there was still violence. It was mostly economic-based, there were no schools. We wanted to help make functional young people," says Linda.
In 1997, Desmond Tutu created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Created to deal with the horrors of apartheid, the TRC allowed perpetrators of racial crimes to receive amnesty for a full confession. Victims could also receive reparations for the pain they had suffered. The four men convicted of Amy's murder applied.
The Biehls wanted to be respectful of the TRC process because they knew that Amy would have supported it. They granted all four men amnesty. At the hearing, Peter addressed the Commission saying, "The most important vehicle of reconciliation is open and honest dialogue ... we are here to reconcile a human life which was taken without an opportunity for dialogue. When we are finished with this process we must move forward with linked arms." However, despite what Peter had said at the hearing, probably nobody expected what happened next.
After they were released from prison, Easy Nofemela and Ntobeko Peni, two of the men convicted of Amy's murder had come to much the same conclusion the Biehls had about the townships.
"They were shocked to see things hadn't changed. Things were worse. Their friends were not in school. There was a lot of drinking and drugs," Linda remembers. The two men started a youth group in their township and they wanted to show the Biehls what they had done. An anthropologist who had been interviewing them offered to contact the Biehls. They agreed.
The Biehls took Nofemela and Peni out to dinner. That night was the beginning of a strong friendship between the four. The Biehls hired the two men to help out with their organization.
[end of excerpt]
She helps the murderers obtain amnesty, she dines out with them, and she hires them, the savages who murdered her own daughter.
Simply put, this is monstrously inhuman. This is liberalism.
If we, as a movement, are waiting for whites to "wake up," we will fail. The Biehl experience shows that even under such circumstances, liberalism remains a terminal disease.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011093.html
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011093.html
Post a Comment