A good point

[Guest 2HOW]

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

<!-- Begin .post -->Vanderboegh: Now That's A Letter to the Editor

In response to this column on the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader's website praising the Quisling AHSA organization and calling for "some intelligent compromises to protect responsible gun ownership and make communities safer," Mike Vanderboegh replies:

TO: Tom Eblen, a Kentuckian who ought to know better.

Dear Tom,

Let me introduce you to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Sez you:

"If Second Amendment absolutists keep standing up and daring others to pry their guns from their "cold, dead fingers," eventually somebody's going to do it."

Ah, the big, bad gun "confiscation" boogeyman.

It may scare you. It may scare certain weak-kneed "sportsmen" willing to compromise our rights for theirs. And, perhaps, it may scare some poorly educated children under the age of twelve.

It does NOT scare us, the intended target of your editorial missive. The way we see it, "eventually somebody's going to TRY to do it." Liberals' biggest problem (and perhaps yours as well) is that they're always extrapolating from their own cowardice. They think that if the government told them to do something, they would do it, so everybody else will too.

Wrong.

Let's boil down the threat of gun confiscation to its mathematical essence:

1. There are as many guns in this country as there are people, something close to 300 million.

2. No matter what law you pass, some percentage of American gun owners will refuse to give theirs up, even if the penalty for doing so is death. Shall we say 3 percent of 100 million gun owners? That's the same percentage as active combatants in our first Revolution, so let's say that's 3 million "pry it from my cold dead hands" types.

3. Now, I'm sure you will agree (intellectually at least) that a man who is willing to die for his beliefs is most often somebody who is willing to kill for them too. This being the case . . .

4. When the government comes to take these citizens' guns, the citizens -- these 3 percenters -- will do their dead level best to kill the thugs sent to do so. Some of them will realize that killing the bureaucrats who sent the thugs is probably a good idea too, so a number of bureaucrats will die. Some of these citizens will also realize the justice of killing the tyrant politicians who told the bureaucrats to send the thugs, and that's even more dead added to the butcher's bill.

On a more personal note, an even smaller (yet still significant) percentage of these citizens will remember that Bill Clinton expanded the laws of warfare in the 90's to include the news media of your enemy as a legitimate target of war, so a number of reporters, editorial writers (uh, what did you say you do for a living?), anti-gun bloggers, and perceived "traitors to the Republic" will die as well, even if (as I'm sure it is in your case) they don't deserve it. I mean, I'd never shoot an editorial writer myself, I have too much love for the 1st Amendment. However, there are others out there who doubtless lack my scruples, especially when they're being shot at themselves. And since Bubba Bill already said it was OK, they'll think, "Hey, why not?"

All told, gunnies and gun grabbers, the casualties will be at least in the low millions making it the worst war America has ever fought -- indeed, the dead would total more than all of America's wars combined. This is especially true since we "cold dead hands types" intend to make it more than a one-to-one ratio. And, you may remember, we're the ones with the firearms already at hand and the ones more likely to know how to use them effectively.

5. Given that, and we understand it even if you don't, please refrain from trying to scare us "bitter enders" into compromising our God given rights. It can't be done. You can't convince us, you can't intimidate us and we're not going away. You can kill us, but you can't change our minds. Thus, stacking up millions of dead bodies in your proposed civil war seems an odd way to ensure "public safety," especially if one of those bodies is unintentionally yours. Is this really what you had in mind?

Welcome to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Sometimes, my young editorialist, there IS no principled middle ground and to stand there is to invite being shot at by both sides with equal gusto -- and I don't mean by mere words and phrases.

Thus endeth the lesson. I hope now that I've explained things in the light of day that you'll recover soon from your silly fright at the big, bad, bogus boogeyman of gun confiscation.

Because it ain't happenin' - not without the worst bloody fight you can possibly imagine.

Have a nice day. ;-)

Mike Vanderboegh

PO Box 926

Pinson, AL 35126

GeorgeMason1776@aol.com

[Guest bkelm18]

Wow. Now that's straight and to the point. Take our guns and you will die. I like it.

[Guest Glknknox]

Very good!

We need more responces like this.

[Bigiron]

A shame this will not be seen in any major media.

[Guest canynracer]

good read...

[PackinMama]

Awesome, that guy needs to join us here at TGO! I think I'll send him an email and invite him to check us out......

[Guest db99wj]

Love the very professional word usage, grammar and sentence structure and then it ends with " Because it ain't happenin'"

Perfect.

[Guest jackdog]

great letter, I love it. I have often thought that if America can't fight insurgencies in Viet Nam or Iraq, they would have a hell of time in America fighting Americans, protecting their constitutional rights.

[DaveTN]

Sounds to me like a couple of guys that both have their tin foil hats screwed on to tight.

This country may have another civil war, but it won’t be over guns or gun rights.

[Guest bkelm18]

Sounds to me like a couple of guys that both have their tin foil hats screwed on to tight.

This country may have another civil war, but it won’t be over guns or gun rights.

No but I guarantee you that gun rights will be there somewhere in the mix.

[Guest Len]

Too bad there were several errors in the letter:

1) Number of guns: Off by about 80 million

2) Clinton expanded the rules of war to include targeting the media of your enemy. Yeah, right. That's been happening for centuries.

3) Liberals are cowards. Again, yeah, right. Every try being an open, vocal liberal in these neo-con times? Takes some guts. Liberals also, by definition, take chances with change. Conservatives value the status quo. Takes more guts to change than stay the same, if you ask me. The basic liberal philosophy is based on an EXPANSION of basic rights. I don't see this as cowardly.

4) "Compromising rights" is something societies must do every day to survive. Its called the rule of law. You can do "x" as long as it does not hurt my right to do "y."

I do agree the forced confiscation of guns from the law-abiding is wrong (morally, ethically, legally, constitutionally) and the results of such an attempt would be nasty. The letter writer tries a little too hard and as a result takes a sound basic idea and hurts his cause in the end.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Sounds to me like a couple of guys that both have their tin foil hats screwed on to tight.

This country may have another civil war, but it won’t be over guns or gun rights.

"From my cold, dead, tin foil wrapped hands..."

[Guest 2HOW]

Hey Len, I guess you just roll over , Right. OBTW your numbers are off. Better check again. And besides the point, I think the senario is a very viable one what ever the numbers are. And your whole response is BULL****.

[Guest db99wj]

Sounds to me like a couple of guys that both have their tin foil hats screwed on to tight.

This country may have another civil war, but it won’t be over guns or gun rights.

I read this and had a thought. If we were to have a Civil war. It seems to me that gun rights advocates seem to think and have similiar views. Notice I didn't say political or religious, just views in general. The anti's have their views as well. A civil war, which might not be over guns and gun rights, but whatever the reason, the people that believe one thing will be mostly gun advocates, becuause they believe in many of the same things, and the the other side will be the anti's because they all believe in many of the same things...

I want to make clear, I am not saying that the gun issue is the central issue.

Ok, with that said. We have a civil war. One side has a bunch of guns, the other side does not. Guess who wins!

Disclaimer: I have no facts or figures to back up my mumblings above, just had a quick thought go through my head!

[DaveTN]

I read this and had a thought. If we were to have a Civil war. It seems to me that gun rights advocates seem to think and have similiar views. Notice I didn't say political or religious, just views in general. The anti's have their views as well. A civil war, which might not be over guns and gun rights, but whatever the reason, the people that believe one thing will be mostly gun advocates, becuause they believe in many of the same things, and the the other side will be the anti's because they all believe in many of the same things...

I want to make clear, I am not saying that the gun issue is the central issue.

Ok, with that said. We have a civil war. One side has a bunch of guns, the other side does not. Guess who wins!

Disclaimer: I have no facts or figures to back up my mumblings above, just had a quick thought go through my head!

The side with superior firepower.

But Okay… I’ll play. If you are talking about the government outlawing or confiscating weapons, and you are talking about citizens making an armed stand against the Police or the Military; the citizens will die. They may die heroes to some; but they will be dead azz heroes.

But this is why we (Non- tinfoil hat types) have said it won’t happen. Police Officers and Military men and women are people; they are citizens of this country. They are not going to take up arms against innocent people.

[strickj]

Police Officers and Military men and women are people; they are citizens of this country. They are not going to take up arms against innocent people.

I seem to be posting this allot here as of late.Lets remember that it has already happened!

[ame]

[/ame]

[Fallguy]

I seem to be posting this allot here as of late.Lets remember that it has already happened!

Everytime I see that video...it just gets me so damn upset

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Everytime I see that video...it just gets me so damn upset :mad:

+ 1

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Hmm.... Looks strage familiar to his post here:

http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=46560.73&nav=messages&webtag=kr-miamitm

[Guest jackdog]

The side with superior firepower.

But Okay… I’ll play. If you are talking about the government outlawing or confiscating weapons, and you are talking about citizens making an armed stand against the Police or the Military; the citizens will die. They may die heroes to some; but they will be dead azz heroes.

But this is why we (Non- tinfoil hat types) have said it won’t happen. Police Officers and Military men and women are people; they are citizens of this country. They are not going to take up arms against innocent people

.

And you know this for sure, please tell us why

[Punisher84]

The side with superior firepower.

But Okay… I’ll play. If you are talking about the government outlawing or confiscating weapons, and you are talking about citizens making an armed stand against the Police or the Military; the citizens will die. They may die heroes to some; but they will be dead azz heroes.

But this is why we (Non- tinfoil hat types) have said it won’t happen. Police Officers and Military men and women are people; they are citizens of this country. They are not going to take up arms against innocent people.

Problem with that statement is you assume all police and military are "gun people" or free thinkers. I speak from experience when I say a fair amount of people in the military will follow just about any order given by a CO.

Also, it is foolish to think that should a wide confiscation be ordered that a civil war would not start. It would also be fair to say it would be guerilla warfare. I hope it never happens, but I don't think you need tin foil to see that things in this country just aren't 100% right.

[saintsfanbrian]

Many military members would follow orders but I know many also would not. I swore an oath to uphold lawful orders.

IF and that is a big IF there were a civil war I don't believe it would be as "clear cut" as it was a hundred plus years ago. I think the "fronts" would be too large to have a clear sense of who is the enemy. Think of Jericho (the series) where towns were fighting against each other. This is the Scenario that I think would happen. This is a scary scenario.

[Guest db99wj]

Many military members would follow orders but I know many also would not. I swore an oath to uphold lawful orders.

IF and that is a big IF there were a civil war I don't believe it would be as "clear cut" as it was a hundred plus years ago. I think the "fronts" would be too large to have a clear sense of who is the enemy. Think of Jericho (the series) where towns were fighting against each other. This is the Scenario that I think would happen. This is a scary scenario.

Wow. yes that would be scary. Makes for a great show, wish I could find time to watch the whole thing. I will one day!

[PackinMama]

Hey Len, I guess you just roll over , Right. OBTW your numbers are off. Better check again. And besides the point, I think the senario is a very viable one what ever the numbers are. And your whole response is BULL****.

+1 !!

[Guest emsputz]

Hey Len, I guess you just roll over , Right. OBTW your numbers are off. Better check again. And besides the point, I think the senario is a very viable one what ever the numbers are. And your whole response is BULL****.

DITTO! I could not agree more!