Saturday, April 2, 2011

Mike Vanderboegh on the Bradys

Using his trademark exaggeration as an excuse to get on the soap box, Mike Vanderboegh claimed the Christian Science Monitor's tribute to Jim and Sarah Brady was akin to hagiography. He used such words as "pimps" and "deifies" to describe what I thought was nothing more than a fitting acknowledgment of their efforts on the 30th anniversary of the shooting.

But, once up on that soap box, he let us have his usual incendiary rhetoric.

"Okay. . . If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."  
Our God-given, natural and inalienable rights are not subject to modification by law or negotiation. Do not extrapolate from your own cowardice and believe that if you are lucky enough to game a corrupt political system and get what you want legislatively, that we, like you, would not resist federal tyranny. We will fight, even though it means our deaths. This is an alien concept to most collectivists but it is nonetheless true. Pass another law -- any law -- that further restricts our free access to arms and you'll have a civil war on your hands in short order. You would have to stack up millions of our bodies to achieve your stated purpose and we would not go quietly without making that trade more than a one-to-one ratio.
I'm beginning to understand what Zorroy sees in this guy. He does have a way with words. Take the sentence right in the middle of the paragraph. "Pass another law -- any law -- that further restricts our free access to arms and you'll have a civil war on your hands in short order."  I didn't want to take it out of context, but do you think the context changes anything about it? I don't see any qualifiers or disclaimers, do you? So, we can take that literally then?

These obviously exaggerated bouts of ranting wouldn't be so bad except he has a huge audience, 600 readers and over 5,000 visitors a day, average. How many in his audience do you think recognize the pomposity and the preposterous nature of that statement? How many realize that there have been such laws and there continue to be, yet there has been no civil war, nor is there likely to be?

And, talking about exaggerations, what did you think about those "millions of our bodies" which he's predicting will be sacrificed fighting against tyranny?  Is that a great example of grandiose victimism, or what?

What's your opinion?  Do you agree with Zorroy that Mike V. is extremely eloquent?  Do you agree with me that he says some extremely crazy things?

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. If future gun-related legislation should result in some effort to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, Vanderboegh's name should definitely be at the top of the list. IIRC, this is the tool who encouraged violence against democratic members of Congress during the HCR debate. I thought he was a nut then, and after reading your post, my opinion of him hasn't changed. I see him as a little man with an inferiority complex who founded a blog, received a bit of national attention, and now feels his is the most important voice in America regarding gun control. I do remember reading that although he argues against government, he is on SSI himself.

  2. I think you took him a little out of context there in that one part. The Progressive asked him a question and he tried to answer it in a thoughtful manner, but the Prog interrupted him rudely and asked for the short answer before he could formulate his response. Perhaps he could have been more circumspect in his response, but sometimes Liberals just get in your face and you get a little rankled.

    Also, think about it...America theoretically has the World's largest standing Army with conservatively, around 3.5 to 4 Million gun owners including Men and Women. As long as the Second Amendment stays in effect, America will remain relatively free. But if America's citizens are disarmed by Government fiat, if the Second Amendment is stripped from the Bill of Rights, you can expect Tyranny to be just around the corner. But the criminals will still have their guns, crime will stay the same or escalate.

  3. majii, Thanks for you comment and for mentioning the SSI thing. I remember when that information surfaced and Mike V. justified it by saying one has a moral obligation to take resources from one's enemy.

    I'm still laughing about that one.

    Mr. G, You're right I took the first quote out of context just for brevity's sake. In fact I was going to write the whole post about how Mike V. loves it when he can say that stupid nonsense about "we'll kill you," and of course he and you blame it on the liberals for being so darned difficult.

    The rest of your comment seems to be that tired old talking point you learned from the NRA, that tyranny is knocking at the door and it's up to the gun owners to keep it at bay.

    Grandiose paranoid victimism I call it.

  4. I'd say keep a hidden stash of guns locked away deep under your house or anywhere else on your property they may be safely concealed. Always carry 8-10 weapons in each vehicle you own and maybe 6-7 handguns on your person at any given time. And for God's sake, no matter what you do, don't forget the ammo! The New World Order National Socialist Dictator, Barack Hussein Obama will not use legal channels to take away your guns. Even the U.S. military will not be privy to this vital information. Obama's gun-confiscating goons will come when you least expect it. Aided by his enormous mercenary army of illegal aliens he will very soon begin taking away all lawfully owned firearms from decent American citizens like yourselves and shipping them to Muslim nations to assist in the worldwide jihad. Financed by your own tax dollars and the credit of the U.S. Treasury. BE WARNED!

  5. Yes, Flying Junior, those gun confiscators will come like a thief in the night.