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.

Tyler Heinze Back in the News

You remember the well-spoken young man who supported his older brother Guy when Guy was arrested on the preposterous charge that he bludgeoned eight family members to death. Guy is still awaiting trial, I'm not sure how that speedy trial business works. Maybe in Georgia that's not one of the Amendments they concern themselves with.

He faces two felony counts of possession of a weapon on school property.

What's your opinion? Are two knives and pepper spray something to really worry about?

Please leave a comment.

Florida 13-Year-Old Felon

The News Journal reports

An Indian Trails middle-schooler accused of bringing a gun onto school property has been charged with two felonies, a Flagler County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman said.

Travis Williams, 13, of Palm Coast was serving a school suspension when a .40-caliber gun was found stashed in his book bag "in the woodline" behind the school, sheriff's spokeswoman Debra Johnson said in a written statement.

The teen is charged with possession of a concealed weapon on a school campus and possession of a concealed weapon.

And here's the clincher.

The boy's mother could not be reached for comment.

In Florida, they don't even consider charging the parents. That's wrong. That's just another way of giving irresponsible gun owners all the help they need to continue being irresponsible.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Orlando, Florida 1 Dead 1 Wounded

The gun rights folks keep saying that allowing guns in bars is OK. Gun control voices say it's not. What do you think?

Another part of the pro-gun argument is that these incidents have nothing to do with gun availability or drinking and guns but only about bad people doing bad things. We say it's more complicated than that.

Florida Today reports.

According to Demings, the manager of the bar called 911 after being stabbed several times by a man after the bar was closed.


As deputies were investigating the incident, the man who stabbed the manager shot Shapiro, Demings said. Deputies returned fire, shooting and killing the man, who has only been identified as a 31-year-old man, Demings said.


"This is a day when it looks like the good guys won," Demings said. "It's not OK to shoot a deputy. The warning here is that If you shoot a deputy or any law enforcement officer, it's likely that you're going to get shot."

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Definition of Gun Control

via That Mr. G Guy's Blog

Click to make bigger

Understanding Economics

via Fuck Conservatives

For me, understanding Paul Krugman can sometimes be a bit difficult. I don't have an economics degree and he's a Nobel Prize winner in Economics. It makes sense. Of course our friend Mr. G Guy isn't deterred by any considerations like that. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that anyone who has difficulty with Krugman just wait till Rachel puts it all together. This is clarity itself.


What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

More on John Lott's Scholarship

via Chris Brown of Media Matters

Last week, we reported that John Lott, a former University of Chicago visiting assistant professor and conservative media pundit, wrongly accused Media Matters of misquoting him. In fact, after we accurately quoted a post Lott had written, Lott's post mysteriously changed, making it appear we had misquoted him, when we had not.

The switch was picked up by Paul Krugman at The New York Times, who wrote:

So, it appears that Lott retroactively tried to put his original statement down the memory hole, then accused a critic of wronging him by quoting what he originally said. Now, that's scholarship!

What's your opinion? Isn't this enough to write the guy off? Wouldn't intelligent and honest gun rights folks break ties with someone like this?

What do you think? Please leave a comment.