"Small gun groups don't stand a chance"

Hermann Goering, avid German sportsman and gun owner.

Folks,

Bitch if you will about today's intrusion on my time spent with Absolved, but I have been asked by different friends to comment on three recent opinion pieces. The first is below. The second will be a Michael Gaddy piece which attacks Oath Keepers and the Tea Parties and the third is about shooting colonels which you may have read on Pete's site. Each response is important in its own right, the one below least of all. However that may be, here it is. First, as usual, I present the offending screed, and then my response. In this case, absent a usable email address for Herr Glover, I will be mailing my letter to his home address today. I will also send a slightly modified version to the Alamogordo News, where it first appeared.

Mike
III

http://www.alamogordonews.com/alamogordo-opinion/ci_14109162

Small gun groups don't stand chance vs. U.S. government
Alamogordo Daily News
Michael Glover, Alamogordo
Posted: 01/02/2010 12:00:00 AM MST

You've got to hand it to these wingnut, right-wing fringe lunatics. They are a tenacious bunch and they really have the passive-aggressive tantrum act down to an art, don't they?

After thoroughly embarrassing themselves last year with their self-appointed moniker of simple "tea baggers" before researching the various nuances of the term, now they simply want to have a "tea party" in the park without, of course, the cups, saucers, scones, crumpets and extended pinkies Š or even tea, for that matter.

This time, they want to "exercise" their Second Amendment "rights" by packing and displaying firearms. As a firearm owner and Second Amendment advocate, I have to say these people may just serve as a good example of why many in this country would like to see the Second Amendment repealed.

Our Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. I own many firearms and am content with my right to own them. Still, there is a big difference between owning and using them at will for recreation or showing up on a street corner (or a movie theater) for a radical, politically-charged protest a gun strapped to your hip.

This is not the Wild West anymore. There is really no reason to open-carry in public like these freaks will do. I interpret "open-carry" to mean that any time I travel in my vehicle with any weapon, I need to have them on the seat, in plain sight, to any law enforcement official I may encounter so that they can be confident I don't have any hidden "surprises" for them. I don't interpret this as some kind of "right" to stroll through Walgreens with a Mac-10 hanging from my shoulder. These people do more damage than good to our Second Amendment rights.

Besides that, they don't even know what they are protesting in the first place! The Obama administration has given no indication that it intends to touch the Second Amendment. The NRA has a long history of whipping conservatives into this same frenzy every time a Democratic president takes office. Again and again, these reactionaries fall for it.

It may be a lot of fun to show off your guns in the park while making a lot of noise and posing an implied threat of overthrowing your own government. If push ever came to shove, though, I'm afraid this "cowboy" mentality just wouldn't hold up long with U.S. soldiers and snipers shooting back.

TO: Michael D Glover
1418 Michigan Ave
Alamogordo, NM 88310-6645
(575) 443-1327

Interesting that you claim to be a “Second Amendment advocate,” when a diligent search of the Internet shows no proof of such “advocacy.“ You claim to own many firearms for “recreation.“ We may suppose that your interest in gun rights mirrors that of the unlamented, now burning-brightly-in-Hell, Hermann Goering, who also owned many firearms and was an avid hunter and sportsman but as early head of the Geheim Staats Polizei did his best to disarm his political opponents -- before he sent them to Dachau. Your ad hominem attacks on Tea Party and real Second Amendment advocates -- “wingnut, right-wing fringe lunatics,“ “reactionaries“ and “cowboys”-- suggests as much. Arms for thee, but not for me, eh? At least not if I “bear arms” in public, right? Do you suppose that the Founders meant that the right extended only to those who carried their arms in private, or only when hunting? The Second Amendment, Herr Glover, has NOTHING to do with the right to hunt, and everything to do with the right of the people to resist tyranny, including tyrannical appetites evinced by domestic enemies of the Constitution.

Which brings us to your assertion that “the Obama Administration has given no indication that it intends to touch the Second Amendment.” On 21 October 2004, then Senate candidate Obama criticized his opponent Alan Keyes: “Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.” This was no new position for him, as he had answered an Illinois State Legislature survey in July 1998: “”Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.” Finally, although candidate Obama soft-pedaled his long-time gun control itch during the campaign because of the perception since 1994 that the issue was a non-starter nationally for Democrats who wanted to get elected, his Attorney General let the cat out of the bag in February of 2009. As ABC quoted Eric Holder at the time: “"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons." The Obamanoid appetite for our liberty and our property is still there, what they apparently lack AT THE MOMENT is the political will to act upon it. People may judge for themselves whether this is temporary or not. But to assert that this predisposition to circumscribe the Second Amendment rights of the people does not exist on the part of the administration is either a bold-faced lie or reality-denying cognitive dissonance. Herr Glover, you may believe what you are selling, but rational people who pay attention to both deeds and words will not drink that suicidal Kool-Ade.

Then there is the inane jabbering of your last paragraph:

It may be a lot of fun to show off your guns in the park while making a lot of noise and posing an implied threat of overthrowing your own government. If push ever came to shove, though, I'm afraid this "cowboy" mentality just wouldn't hold up long with U.S. soldiers and snipers shooting back.

Why my dear Herr Glover, how truly clueless can you be? We are not threatening the “overthrow” of our own government. That has already been accomplished by the Gramscian undermining of the Founders’ Republic by the socialists of the Democrat Party over the past seventy-five years. What we aim for is a counter-revolution, a restoration if you will. If we wish to overthrow anything, it is to overthrow the overthrowers. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that apparently means you and your beloved Democrat Party, and any of the hapless GOP who act as your “useful idiots“ to use Lenin‘s phrase. If we can accomplish that legally, all the better. But we will resist further federal tyranny. On that you may depend. And the thing about those of us who own rifles of military utility -- those evil, “assault rifles” that Obama and Holder wish to ban -- is that when democracy turns to tyranny, we STILL get to vote. We just won’t be doing it from voting booths.

Two final points, to fully explore the depths of your cluelessness. First, you obviously haven’t heard of Bill Clinton’s modified rules of engagement. In 1999, when the Serbs were proving more intractable to his charms than Monica Lewinsky, he changed the U.S. military’s ROE to include as legitimate targets of war the politicians, intellectual supporters and news media outlets of his enemies. Thus self-justified, he then lobbed precision guided munitions into the homes of the Serbian political elite and the offices of Serbian radio and television. He missed all the major players of the regime and managed only to kill a few score make-up artists, floor sweepers and security guards. I conclude that you have not heard of Clinton’s Folly, for if you had, you wouldn’t be writing letters in a public venue offering intellectual support to an administration who might, intentionally or accidentally, set off a civil war with a considerable portion of its own people. Should the worse come to worst, as you seem to sneer in your final sentence, then you have just put yourself on a target list, using Bill Clinton’s own rules, of course. I think this falls both under the purview of the Law of Unintended Consequences, which often hands down verdicts from which there is no appeal, and the old Chinese warning that one should be careful what one wishes for, lest one get it.

My second final point regarding your cluelessness is demonstrated in your sneering last sentence of the above quoted last paragraph. You assume that our military would obey unconstitutional orders to disarm the American people (or at least, that portion whom you deride). You apparently have not heard of the recent founding and stunning growth of Oath Keepers, an organization dedicated to remind our military and police that the oath they took was one to the Founders’ Constitution and Republic and not some Fuhrer Prinzip blood oath to Barack Obama. Are you entirely certain which way those rifle barrels would be pointed if unconstitutional orders are given? Again, be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

You may get it, indeed, as the forces of King George the Third and his Tory familiars got it from the Founders, despite the Tories' own firmly held opinions that “small groups of colonial militia don’t stand a chance against the British army.” You may notice that the image of Queen Elizabeth the Second is not on our coinage.

If there is anything about this letter that by virtue of your worldview that you do not understand, please do contact me. I will be happy to explain the real world that you live in from our worldview, you poor, unfortunate and clueless fellow.

Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com