Tuesday, January 5, 2010

"Small gun groups don't stand a chance"

Hermann Goering, avid German sportsman and gun owner.


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.



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to say these people may just serve as a good example of why many in this country would like to see the Second Amendment repealed.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


Anonymous said...

Just joking about cracking the whip over you to get you back to Absolved. Pax?

It will be interesting to read Mr Glover's response to you -- if any.

B Woodman

Anonymous said...

Two thoughts - when I first read the article heading, my initial thought was -
"Darned right those small gun groups don't have a chance, that's why we all get BIG guns for our groups!!"
Second - in Glover's pukeworthy sac of pus masquerading as an op-ed, he truly does seem to have an unfortunate addiction to some type of hallucinogenic drugs which allow him to live in multiple variances of reality. A glaring example is his statement that the tea-party protesters called themselves 'teabaggers' - when pretty much anyone with an IQ higher than that of a goose turd ( which obviously eliminates Glover) remembers that the term for a particularly vile sexual practice between two males, was first applied by the 'in crown' media elites, like Olberman and those of his ilk, who exchanged knowing smirks with guests like the repulsive Janeane Garafulo each time that they used it.
At the time, I wondered - WHY are these people proud of having knowledge of terms for perverted sexual acts? I guess that must be what journalists study these days.
Sorry for the long rant - feel free to edit anything for brevity.
Good seeing you again, btw.
- julian -

Anonymous said...


As I recall, the last time I was spanked that hard, I could not sit for a while.

I suppose since your son is grown, and in Germany, you had to find someone else.

I like the way you write, and think.


Uncle Lar said...

Typical of the left to attempt to blame their targets for what they themselves are guilty of. It was always the Tea Party movement, so called in honor of the infamous Boston tea party of history and legend. The disgusting "tea bagger" terminology originated with the smarmy left sycophants despterate for some tag to hang their feces flinging attacks on.
I do take heart in the simple fact that this article and those of a similar nature have come to light. It tells me that what we are doing is working and beginning to worry the left as their house of cards built on lies and deception begins to crack and crumble.

+III+ said...

That was more than a spanking. That was a ream and rebush.

Thanks for taking the time, Mike.

Pat H. said...

The post by "Glover" reminds me of that famous commentary by the former gun writer, Jim Zumbo.

Somehow Zumbo, who some claimed was knowledgeable about guns and their uses, had failed to notice the sharply upward trend of self defense, i.e. militia weapons, that began some 20 years before his colossal error attacking "assault weapons" as a bad thing.

However, I don't think these control mavens are clueless. I think they know full well what they're doing and revel in the doing of it, just as long as they think they can send in surrogates that will do their disarming of the citizenry for them without consequence to themselves.

Mike, as you so eloquently pointed out in your response, those who send out surrogates to disarm us are equally guilty as those who attempt the disarming activities and should meet exactly the same fate.

Molōn labe!

Carl Bussjaeger said...

What the heck happened to Alamogordo? I used to live there. Open carry was common. Heck, you'd see folks with rifles over their shoulders walking down Main Street.

This Glover moron can't be a local; probably assigned to Holloman AFB. Which makes me wonder if he is this Michael D. Glover.

Rick said...

I agree with the comments here. The true "gun-control" advocates fear those not in agreement with them in how to run (i.e., control) the government in their interests.

Our present government is a "government of the special interests, by the special interests, and for the special interests," and they fear an armed public.

Rick, a tea partier

Carl said...

Glover immediately goes for the ad hominem attack which plainly shows his lack of logic and debate skills (and lack of character, for that matter. He also clearly has never read enough real history to understand the Founders' reasoning behind the 2nd Amd. Just another poorly-educated Marxist shill flapping his jaws because he likes the sound of his own voice.

Frank Sauer said...

Mike, good post, one small nit to pick, re: "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."

There have been a number of Republican Party socialists over the past many years (starting with Lincoln). Just want to be "inclusive", don't you know?

Cheers, and keep it up on Absolved,

Phelps said...

1  /bɛər/ [bair]
–verb (used with object)
1. to hold up; support: to bear the weight of the roof.
2. to hold or remain firm under (a load): The roof will not bear the strain of his weight.
3. to bring forth (young); give birth to: to bear a child.
4. to produce by natural growth: a tree that bears fruit.
5. to hold up under; be capable of: His claim doesn't bear close examination.
6. to press or push against: The crowd was borne back by the police.
7. to hold or carry (oneself, one's body, one's head, etc.): to bear oneself erectly.
8. to conduct (oneself): to bear oneself bravely.
9. to suffer; endure; undergo: to bear the blame.
10. to sustain without yielding or suffering injury; tolerate (usually used in negative constructions, unless qualified): I can't bear your nagging. I can hardly bear to see her suffering so.
11. to be fit for or worthy of: It doesn't bear repeating.
12. to carry; bring: to bear gifts.
13. to carry in the mind or heart: to bear love; to bear malice.
14. to transmit or spread (gossip, tales, etc.).
15. to render; afford; give: to bear witness; to bear testimony.
16. to lead; guide; take: They bore him home.
17. to have and be entitled to: to bear title.
18. to exhibit; show: to bear a resemblance.
19. to accept or have, as an obligation: to bear responsibility; to bear the cost.
20. to stand in (a relation or ratio); have or show correlatively: the relation that price bears to profit.
21. to possess, as a quality or characteristic; have in or on: to bear traces; to bear an inscription.
22. to have and use; exercise: to bear authority; to bear sway.

(My emphasis.) Seems pretty clear to me.

suek said...

" Arms for thee, but not for me, eh?"

I've read this twice an perhaps am missing a clever turn of phrase, but shouldn't this be reversed..."for me but not for thee"?

(First paragraph of your reply)

Happy D said...

Small gun groups don't stand a chance?

I seem to remember an incident in Waco Texas where some folks stopped machine gun carrying Feds with little training and just the guns they had around. Held them off for a while to.
So much for the invincible Feds?

I think there was another one in a place called Warsaw. A bunch of Jews held of machine gun carrying Gov officials. With less guns less advanced than the worn out stuff I leave in the open to distract burglars if they should break in.
Held them off for a long while to. So much for the invincible Wehrmacht.

I seem to remember two Muslim fellows in a place around Washington D.C. creating quite the stir with an rifle and a car. So much for the invincible Police.

Something happened in North Hollywood involving two lowlifes with a few guns that held up the police for quite a while. Do I have to say it again?

So a don't stand a chance?

Kevin Patrick said...

I am a West Virginian currently in Serbia. I would like to clarify a point you make about what is appropriately labeled "Clinton's Folly."

Only Milošević's house was bombed, and it was while he was away in another city. It doesn't make it right, by any means, but that's what happened. Media, military, and government targets were also attacked in the 1999 NATO bombing, of which the US was the key player.

Unlike the quick-clean-up after September 11th, you can walk downtown Beograd and see the buildings with 60ft holes in their sides still there today. There are still office chairs and sweaters in some of the offices, I kid you not. I saw them today. I'm getting ready to come home to Appalachia next week.

Clintonian imperialism is no better than Bush-era imperialism or Obama imperialism.

I really appreciate everything you do. Thanks from Appalachia.

I'll see you at New Lexington.


We the people... said...

Well said, sir.

Anonymous said...


God bless you sir for your able defense of essential Liberty - and for the 'worldview correction' offered to Mr. Glover, irrespective of his response to it.

I think what irks guys like him, is that he's a feminized 'hollow man', and when he sees real men, of conviction & integrity, standing up to 'national bullies', it un-nerves him.

(His willful obfuscation of calling the 'Tea Partiers', falsely, 'tea baggers' is likely an accurate indicator of his gender confused state.)

Truly the Spirit of the LORD is moving through this land, waking up genuine Sons Of Liberty - and that will have it's reaction. A genuine movement of God always draws 'Satan's fire' - we must expect it, embrace it, and let it power us to dare even more for Liberty.

I take courage from the example of the Founding Fathers, who trusted in God & His Liberty.

They knew the Scriptures, like Psalm 2 where the Real King instructs the 'lesser kings & judges of the earth'....to obey Him, lest [you] be destroyed in the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him !

For King Jesus,
Molon Labe !

David Alan

suek said...

Here's an interesting piece from an unusual source:


Luke said...

Pat H. said:

"Somehow Zumbo, who some claimed was knowledgeable about guns and their uses, had failed to notice the sharply upward trend of self defense, i.e. militia weapons, that began some 20 years before his colossal error attacking "assault weapons" as a bad thing."

Zumbo, if not senile/crazy, apparently wasn't aware that one of his big-time sponsors, Remington, was already selling clones of the AR-15 and AR-10. As Remington CEO Tommy Millner wrote at the time, "Paid spokesmen do not attack the product families of the company that pays them. When you do that in our country you get fired." Yup.

Randall said...

Give 'em Hell Mike!!!

CorbinKale said...

Glover should do a quick check of the Obama Agenda site before telling us "The Obama administration has given no indication that it intends to touch the Second Amendment." Hateful and uninformed is a hell of a way to go through life, I bet.


"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

JOHN said...

Fine reply sir! Get em! May we all heed the warnings and think.
John III