Friday, January 15, 2010

Those Crazy Tea Party Patriots

Daily Kos reported on the latest "tea party" nonsense.

From an interview with Jeffrey McQueen, founder of

McQueen: This flag has never been meant to replace the national flag. This flag has a specific purpose and it's time has come. To show the politicians and the media that we're ready for a second American revolution. And with that, you know, in America we have a choice of four boxes for political change. We can go to the soap box, the ballot box, or we can go to the jury box. And hopefully we won't have to go to the bullet box.

Ashbrook: Bullet box? Are you talking about armed revolution?

McQueen: Have you seen the ammunition sales the last twelve months?

What's your opinion? Do you think it's reasonable to talk about "tyranny" and threaten to "go to the bullet box?"

Please leave a comment.


  1. The bullet box option will only be needed if the first 3 boxes are no longer available.

    That's how this country was formed to begin with, hence the reference the the "2nd American Revolution."

    Bush came pretty close to denying the 1st 3 boxes and so far, Obama is Bush's 3rd term.

  2. It is reasonable to talk about anything.

  3. What's your opinion? Do you think it's reasonable to talk about "tyranny" and threaten to "go to the bullet box?"

    Would you prefer that the killing start without warning? Isn't it a good thing to give the collectivists a chance to think about the potential costs of their agenda?

  4. "Bush came pretty close to denying the 1st 3 boxes and so far, Obama is Bush's 3rd term."

    And you will be happy to show us all your archived posts and comments indicating your distaste, distrust and fear of losing your rights from 2001-2009?

  5. I see Kavey needs a lesson in American History.

    He apparently buys into the myth that American colonists--tired of living under the King of England--took up guns and defeated the Brits.

    Didn't quite happen that way.

    In truth, the American revolution would have been quite easily put down by England were it not for the fact France (at the time a protagonist of England) entered the war. France impeded English shipping and logistics to the colonies while providing financial, material, and military support to the colonists.

    Perhaps, Kavey will tell us what superpower is going to come to the aid of him and his 30-odd lunatic bloggers?


  6. I see Jadey uses the word "protagonist" in a . . . unique fashion. It's almost as novel as Mikeb's use of the term "eyewitness."

  7. "Do you think it's reasonable to talk about "tyranny" and threaten to "go to the bullet box?""


    Freedom of speech is reasonable.

  8. Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

  9. It is immoral to go to the ammo box while the ballot box still works, even if the ballot box isn't giving the results you desire.

    The ballot box won't be broken until after the second amendment is. Although there are other reasons to support the second, that one alone is sufficient--having a working second makes tyranny much more difficult to achieve.

  10. Zorro: Perhaps English isn't your first language; if that's the case, your comment can easily be forgiven.

    If you have a basic knowledge of Europe in the late 18th century, you'd understand the entire continent was dominated by two major players--England and France. Within English history of the time, the American colonies were something of a sideshow.

    Thus, my use of the word 'protagonist' is not only correct but apt.


  11. Yes, if there's one thing JadeGold has it's good command of the old English.

    I think he's got a good command of the gun debate too.

  12. I think in this context it's simply rhetorical as he is just giving it as an option, not something being planned or imminent. The purpose of having the "bullet box" as the final balance to power is if a government takes away the first three.

    So long as we have legitimate elections, freedom of speech, and a (relatively) honest judiciary ... the concept of armed revolution is ridiculous. The whole reason we vote is to non-violently affect the change in government that a majority of the people want.

    Like it or not the 2008 election was certainly a non-violent and constitutionally condoned revolution at the ballot box ... one I think a lot of "hope and change" revolutionaries are starting to regret. I hope so, anyway.

    The election this coming Tuesday and the big one in November will be interesting. If Obama and cronies keep their big majority ... it will be disappointing, but only in corrupt banana republics do people try to overturn a fair election with violence.

    As much as I dislike the current administration, if it is fairly reelected I would have to stand with them against those who would violently overthrow them.

  13. Sorry FWM, it is not "reasonable to talk about anything." For example, it would be totally unreasonable to talk seriously about meteorite protection. Surely you get my point with all that mereorite nonsense.

    In a similar way it's not reasonable to seriously talk about fighting off tyranny with your little individual guns. Anyone who does that, in my opinion, is engaging in grandiose victimism.

    What is reasonable is to want to protect your family, in which case we can argue if it's really necessary and if there's a downside to keeping guns around. It's also reasonable to simply insist you like guns, period. Again we could argue if it's safe and worthwhile to do so.

    But this idea of fighting off the government or "resorting to the bullet box" is total crap.

  14. What part of "hopefully we won't have to go to the bullet box" do folks not understand? I'm confident we will turn things arouns with the Ballot and Jury boxes. Unfortunately, radio doesn't always give you time to clarify your thoughts.

    Looks like we have a good shot at using the ballot box to take Teddy Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. The Democrats should not send in Obama, Biden and Bill Clinton . . . they should send in AL GORE! Clearly this is a REAL EXAMPLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE WITHOUT COOKED DATA! I'm so excited, I'm outside spraying CFCs over Detroit, Michigan right now. CLIMATE CHANGE NOW!


    Jeff McQueen

  15. If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.

    The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

  16. In a similar way it's not reasonable to seriously talk about fighting off tyranny with your little individual guns. Anyone who does that, in my opinion, is engaging in grandiose victimism.

    If I'm the only one fighting, then chances are the problem is with me rather than tyranny. If I fight individually, I'll lose.

    If there are several million active fighters, plus a sizable plurality who support but don't actively fight, there's a good chance of success. That won't happen unless there is true tyranny.

    ...and how different is this from the political arena? If I vote and campaign myself without the support of others, I lose. However, if I'm part of a large enough organization--for the sake of argument, about the size of the a sizable plurality who support but don't actively fight, there's a good chance of success.

  17. Sevesteen's been drinking the crazy juice.

    There aren't "several million active fighters, plus a sizable plurality who support but don't actively fight."

    I seriously doubt there are several hundred. Most NRA members don't even agree with the positions of folks like Kavey.

    OTOH, you do have folks like Kavey and Zorro and Sevesteen who make noises about revolution and insurrection--but they're like the fat guys at the end of the bar who say they can whip Mike Tyson.


  18. "In a similar way it's not reasonable to seriously talk about fighting off tyranny with your little individual guns."

    What makes it not reasonable?

  19. Mikeb says:

    In a similar way it's not reasonable to seriously talk about fighting off tyranny with your little individual guns.

    I wish the anti-gun enuretics would make up their minds--sometimes, it's "your guns would avail you naught in combat against government-sanctioned military forces," and other times it's ".50 caliber rifles and 'assault weapons' are weapons of war, with no place except on the battlefield."

    Well? Which is it?

  20. Zorro asks, "Well? Which is it?"

    Actually it's both. You can have all the .50 caliber maching guns you want and if the government sends in the troops to take you out, you're finished. So your fantasy is silly, as evidenced by Waco and Ruby Ridge. It's not the "enuretics" who are silly, it's you.

    The fact that some of the "pants wetters" think you shouldn't have heavy weapons is not inconsistent with the fact that you wouldn't stand a chance against the government whether you had them or not.

  21. Mike B. ...

    A compound of a 100 or so adults with Children and any number of guns and no real support from the rest of the populace has no chance against an army, it's true. If Davidians were declaring a revolution no one showed up to help them, so of course they lost. Although military weapons were involved, it wasn't really a military intervention per se in any case.

    But imagine if they were at the forefront of a popular revolution ... (and BTW I'm defending the concept of armed civilians, not the specific Branch Davidian situation or even where I believe we are headed in my lifetime) ...

    The government has suspended elections and declared martial law (probably because healthcare legislation is still being filibustered ;-) and "nationalized" all sources of news, ordering that for the public peace any stories of national importance must be vetted. Meanwhile, citizens who refuse to wear "hope" buttons are being rounded up and sent to reeducation camps where the chant "fired up and ready to go."

    This time when the government agents move in with a force to take out a compound of people that have declared themselves free of government tyranny, the entire countryside rises up against them. Not 100 armed people, but 10,000. Coming from all directions. Who are local and know the territory and are fighting for their families and their homes.

    How well did the US army deal with a situation like that in Vietnam or Iraq?

    The 2nd amendment isn't so that a crazed group of a few hundred adults can kill government agents; it's so that if the government becomes tyrannical the millions of liberty loving American citizens can nullify the army entirely.

    Can a 2 million man army stand up against 200 million armed citizens? Hell no!

    and of course the ability to defend your family is an added bonus, also part of the original intent.

    If you are an American who doesn't own guns, and is not a criminal ... then clearly you love neither your country or your family enough to defend them. And you need to look into your heart and ask yourself why you don't consider your family and nation worthy of your defense.

  22. Stephen said, "But imagine if they were at the forefront of a popular revolution."

    It's this kind of fertile imagination that probably makes you a great writer. I cant wait to read your novel.

    But in the reality of the gun debate, fantasy has no place.

  23. Fantasy has little place in any political discussion. But history does. Can you think of a nation through history that hasn't, at some point, had a violent revolution?

    Forget about African and South American countries where such revolutions happen every few years, I'm talking about England, France, Russia, Greece, etc.

    If it can happen there, why not here? "He who doesn't learn from history is destined to repeat it."

  24. I'm watching the Second Season of 24 right now. That's the one with the nuclear explosion in the desert outside Los Angeles.

    But it's a movie. I'm afraid some of you guys have lost sight of the line between reality and fantasy.

  25. USRevolution2


    I'm Jeff McQueen. I'm happy to have been there with a couple hundred of my flags at the Scott Brown Victory Rally. I am confident we will win our Second American Revolution with the "Ballot Box." Scott Brown did not win the seat of the "Mouse of the House" He won the seat of the "Lion of the Senate!" I heard a rumor Barney Frank was in one of those closed door Whitehouse meetings screaming: "We should have been able to win this seat with a piece of furniture!"

    The real story here is how many people in Massachusetts were suffering from "Buyer's Remorse" after voting for Obama, and couldn't wait to set things straight by voting for Brown. They did it not because Obama is Black. They did it because he is Red and they honestly like Brown . . . and being from Michigan . . . I am Gren with envy!

  26. Jeff, Thanks for the comment. I'm glad to know you're confident about the ballot box. But I can't help thinking that your answer to Ashbrook's questioning your mention of the bullet box was a bit ambiguous. Aren't you worried about your listeners who aren't as confident about the ballot box as you getting the wrong idea. They could easily think you're condoning violence, couldn't they?

    The Obama buyer's remorse is definitely true. I have it.

  27. kfmdrahvpedsilgiljwq, yahoo scanner, JJPfakJ.

  28. tkutaxvnhjsbccdpmuix, Yahoo scanner, MymMaHm.

  29. Well, Anon, you make at least as much sense as Jadefool and His Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader.

    Faint praise, perhaps . . .