Monday, January 9, 2012

"Mind numbing ignorance." A hoplohobe stumbles attempting to put "the 2nd amendment into context."

A modest proposal of mind numbing ignorance.
My reply:
Ah, yes, the "mind numbingly ignorant" hoplophobe. What would we do without periodic reminders of his existence to spur our own efforts against the citizen disarmament advocates such as he? For this, at least, we have Mark Neish to thank.
As far as the exclusive "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment that Neish tries to float, I would suggest that his argument is with the Supreme Court, for he seems to be mind numbingly ignorant of the Heller decision, which upholds the individual right to keep and bear arms.
And then we have this:
"For those, who think that their ownership of guns protects them from their own government, it would be best to pull your head out of your rear. If you are paranoid enough to believe that there will be a military coup in this country, do you really believe that you and several other fools armed with shotguns, handguns and rifles will be able to take on the United States military with their aircraft, drones and armored vehicles?"
Neish seems mind-numbingly ignorant of the long military history demonstrating the efficacy of guerrillas facing totalitarian governments. Also, for a high school principal, his historical amnesia shockingly extends to the Twentieth Century, for it does not take a military coup to achieve dictatorship. Hitler, for one, came to power using the "democratic" rules of the Weimar Republic, then promptly used the gun registration laws of that system to locate and confiscate weapons from the hands of the Jews and other regime opponents. Democracy, absent constitutional republican limitations -- which is what the Bill of Rights is and why the Founders put it there -- can turn to tyranny overnight. My rights, God-given, natural and inalienable, are not subject to the whim of any collectivist majority. I apparently need to remind Neish of the certainty that when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote. Don't believe me? Try it and watch what happens.
One last comment on the paragraph cited above: who do you suppose, Mr. Neish, make up the tip of the spear elements of the United States military? Why it is the sons and daughters of those you seek to disarm. Most elitists don't raise their kids to military service to their country. Good old boys do. When the tyrannical orders are issued, Mr. Neish, which way do you suppose those very expensive, technologically brilliant and very deadly weapons will be pointed? Toward their family members? Or the stupid, rapacious tyrants who issued the orders? And of what utility are such weapons when you are fighting a civil war with motivated insurgents who are using Fourth Generation Warfare (look it up, Neish) in your own country, astride your own corridors of logistics and communications? Even if you control the media, the EXERCISE of all that destruction would be politically unsustainable. Which brings me to this mind numbingly ignorant statement:
"I would suggest that our government ban the sale and ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons. These weapons serve no practical purpose for the common citizenry."
Ah, but they do, Herr Neish. They certainly do. And therein lies the central problem of your advocated thesis.
I was once asked by a citizen disarmament advocate who belonged to Handgun Control (now known as the Brady Campaign) what my position was on another, complete ban on semi-automatic rifles of military utility. As I began to explain, he irritatedly cut me off, saying, "Give me the short answer." I thought for a moment.
"Okay, if you try to take our firearms we will kill you." This was about as short and sweet as I could think of. He recoiled in shock and his eyes glazed over. He, as you, considered me "paranoid." But, as I once said to another citizen disarmament activist who made the same claim, let's say you're right. Let's say I AM paranoid. Indeed, let's say I'm crazy, as you no doubt by now believe me to be. Considering that there at least three million folks just like me -- three percent of American gun owners -- armed and trained to the use of those arms, that just complicates your problem doesn't it?
How do you propose to get our property away from us -- we of the three million? Do you seriously think, extrapolating from your own cowardice, that we will simply hand them over if the penalty for not doing so is imprisonment or even death? Talk about mind numbingly ignorant. Mr. Neish, a man who is willing to die for his principles is most often willing to kill in defense of them and his life and the lives of all of his family as well. Everyone except citizen disarmament advocates understands this -- that the banning of "the sale and ownership of semi-automatic assault weapons" would be a declaration of war on a small but significant portion of the American people. You may kill us, sir, with your proposed tyranny, but you cannot convince us. And we will not go gently into your tyrannical good night, by a ratio of considerably more than 1 to 1.
Thus, now that you are not so "mind numbingly ignorant," do you still consider the stacking up of millions of bodies in a ghastly civil war worth the price of your proposal?
Mike Vanderboegh
The alleged leader of a merry band of Three Percenters
PO Box 926
Pinson AL 35126



Mind numbingly ignorant? Or intentionally and obstinately stupid? NOBODY...NO FUCKIN' BODY could possibly be this stupid by nature. Too much MSNBC.

Anonymous said...

"Generally, the overwhelming benefit of gun ownership for many, during the late 1700's and through decades later, was having those weapons to put food on the table."

This misses the whole point. The overwhelming benefit of US citizenship is gun ownership.

I have yet to meet an Ed. D who had the remotest clue about logic, philosophy, economics or constitutional law.

Dr Neish is just one more example as to why no parent should ever send a son or daughter to a public school.

WV: mytop--my top choice for idiot of the week is awarded to Dr Neish.


Ashrak said...

"What I find exceptionally distasteful is the propensity of this group to engage in "Cafeteria Constitutionalism," wherein they are all for some parts, as long as those sections are interpreted in the manner of which they approve, and would rather turn a blind eye to other sections of the Constitution, of which they would rather not speak for fear of coming into conflict with their narrow, parochial views."

Does he mean, like, those "Authorized Journalists" who champion the First Amendment as sacrosanct but then turn around and belittle the Second Amendment as if it is somehow different and thus malleable over time?

In true progressive form, this fellow projects what he is about to embark upon, and indeed does, onto his opponents right before he does it.

Have you folks out there noticed that all gun debate from the gun control side, well the vast majority of it, prior to Heller and McDonald was Case Law based but ever since it is 100% emotion based rants like this one that avoids entirely the very standard that the gun grabbers once employed so wickedly?

The only meme they have left this day is seems to be that the Constitution is "old", "outdated" or that somehow one inalienable right is in some way different from another - that some rights are more equal and more meaningful than others.

I would love to ask that author, in front of others where he would be forced to answer (Think " To Catch a Gun Grabber") the following "yes" or "no" question.....

Is government empowered to require Citizens to seek out a permission slip, pay for the opportunity to beg for it and then "qualify" Citizens based on some arbitrary and ever changing standards so that they may be immune to being punished, thus "allowed", for nothing more than the mere exercise of what is the enumerated, individual, fundamental, incorporated right to own and carry and even sometimes use an ink pen, a piece of paper, a laptop and/or a smart phone?

IOW, Sir, is it your position that government is empowered by the Constitution to allow and disallow the recognized right to speak freely as it sees fit based on a permission slip system?

If so, then what is the purpose of enumerating rights to begin with?

I love it when today's authorized journalists present the idea that the First Amendment is somehow different from the Second Amendment - that the First Amendment is to be held on high, preserved defended and exercised right in the face of a government bent on intruding and limiting it - while at the same time themselves intruding and trying to limit, sometimes outright trying to destroy, the Second Amendment.

Hypocrites they are, of the highest order. The fool who wrote the piece in question is indeed qualified to lead those so labeled "H word" butt nuggets.

It's time those folks see it - be shown directly - that the authority they want government to exert over the Second Amendment is authority then mirrored onto the First Amendment. The "rules" they want applied to the Second Amendment exercise must then also apply to the exercise of the First Amendment.

The Tree of Liberty is wilting, indeed in need of a solid and lengthy drink.

Kent McManigal said...

There has already been a military coup in America. After all, who gives the military its orders? The government, which is not legitimate since it violated its "hall pass" (the Constitution) and therefore lost any flimsy justification it ever had to exist. Just because the government hasn't ordered its military to kill too many of us yet doesn't mean the coup hasn't happened.

Longbow said...

Well done, Mike.

Sean said...

Something else about this bothers me. 97% of Americans in 1791 were involved in agriculture. The meat on the table was most likely raised stock, not hunted deer, elk, etc. Also, they ate a lot less meat in those days, than we do now, since even raised stock had limits, and hunts weren't always successful. So their diet consisted mainly of grains, vegetables, and whatever fruit was preserved or in season. So the hunting idea is only partly true. With no SWAT teams and roving cop cars, and mostly no police at all, it made sense to own guns, to enforce your own idea of property rights and privacy. Which is why gun purchases and ownership is so high now, people seeing the writing on the wall made by their own govt., that it means to control every thing we do, the Brady Campaigns' moronic rantings notwithstanding. The last thing, they(Bradys, govt. mokes, and other socialist buttwipes) should take the hint, that if all the people who could, went out and shot something for dinner,(I know it would violate the hunting laws)the US wildlife population would dissapear quickly. Guess why we have the guns then, hmmmm?

Gordy said...

What do you expect from a Babylonian indoctrination center overseer? Reason? Logic? Understanding? You get only confusion. And you can't tell this kind of man anything, because he knows everything already.

Anonymous said...

He "holds a doctorate degree in education". Well, there it is. Say no more.

Brian said...

The 2nd Amendment exists in case the government decides that I an of the wrong ethnic group at tells me and my family to get one suitcase each and get in the truck.

An armed people can say "no".
Unarmed people can not.

Anonymous said...

The reason for such absurd notions from Herr Neish is evident by his position. If you can't teach, but can recite the talking points of the left, there is a promotion waiting for you. Being a school 'Principal' is not a position of achievement, but a position of servitude to the union bosses. As long as they play along with the plans of the left, they can keep their job, which is overpaying relative to their abilities. Just my own opinion....

Anonymous said...

When I die - and I will, I intend to earn it...

Anonymous said...

The guy is a putz and a tool. And in his "field" this makes him nearly heroic (and published, very few of these flakes are).

These kind of article/opinion pieces ran all over the country yesterday as a celebration of the death Jared Loughner brought to Tucson. All are pro-gun control of one flavor or another.

Pushing gun control requires high crime and frequent insane acts, so the left revels in them. And hopes for copycats as they play it over and over and over in the media.

Anonymous said...

This has never been about the truth or reality. This was and has always been about the seizure of power and subjugation of a nation and it's people.

Ignorance is solved by hearing truth and facts. This then, is not ignorance but deliberation and intent to thwart truth and fact, thereby achieving goals not supported by truth or fact but lies, instead.

The intent is to diligently harm, to damage, to kill, truth and fact and replace it with lies and evil design and that fact can only be hidden, if the media also believes in the evil and the lies. Which they most certainly do.

Anonymous said...

Accepting Dr. Neish's argument for just a second that the Second Amendment protects only those arms that existed in 1791, doesn't that also imply that the the First Amendment only applies to the "press" that existed alongside the Brown Bess, the Charleville, and the Jaeger? No telephone, no television (broadcast or cable), no internet, no photography whether still or motion would be safe from government censorship.

Except that the majority opinion in DC v Heller explicitly threw out that argument as being rediculous.

So my question for the good doctor is this: "What freaking rock have you been living under since the Heller decision was rendered?"

Pat H. said...

Ah, that was refreshing fun, putting Neish on notice that we're done with progressive/fascism.

It's good, from time to time, exercise our right to redress against these dangerous thugs.

For that is precisely what Neish is, think about the fact that he, and others like him, taught YOUR children.

Anonymous said...

"common citizenry"

That says it all right there. He's saying shut yer hole you filthy commoners. Know your place, peasants. This mentality is just another part of the "pre crime" gotta prevent it all safety mantra of the last 50-100 years.

Anonymous said...

Now, now lads. Mr. Neish may be a hoplophobe and a member of the unthinking collective; but he is, after all, entitled to air his opinions, as are we as a form of delivering a warning. I, for one, will not enter into a debate with Mr. Neish regarding his positions regardless of how vociferously he espouses them. Turning words into action is the point where a conflict will arise.

As Mr. Vanderboegh so eloquently stated, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you". We, as 'free' men, know very well what we are about and if Mr. Neish is unaware that natural law precedes and precludes a conflicting law of man he operates at his own peril.

I have dealt with a 'Mr. Neish' debate before in the personage of one of my siblings. My response was, "If that is your position don't send a representative in the form of an armed hireling to accomplish your aims. You come to enforce your edicts and rest assured that I will blast you out of your shoes!".

I know what will force me to "Step off the porch". Until then Mr. Neish may 'run his gums' all he likes.

Extremely well said Mr. Vanderboegh and congratulations to you for bringing this piece to our attention and identifying another enemy of liberty.

Semper Fidelis


Anonymous said...

The language of that post reminded me of something: I had a back and forth with a guy on one of the premier Left websites many years ago. He started out by saying that absolutely no one he knew voted for Bush so the election must have been a fraud. I posted back that his logic was faulty. He, in turn, wrote back that he was a lawyer involved in gun legislation and there was nothing wrong with his logical reasoning.
Rather than go for the cheap snark I asked what kind of legislation. He posted that he was part of a Nation-wide network of law firms trying to sue all the gun manufacturers out of existence. I posted back that following his plan to its ultimate successful conclusion, the Bush administration that he thought was Illegitimate and a bunch of gestapo killers would be forced to create a government arms manufacturing company to arm the military and for export. No peace loving Leftists could own as much as a shotgun for his ranch and no citizen could own as much as one bullet. At that, another poster posted pretty much the exact same tirade you posted. Almost word for word. Over and over. In between, the lawyer said, yes, it was an interesting conclusion he had not even considered while the other guy kept posting the same, "You think having a gun will protect you from the military?" over and over.
None of these people can think beyond their next breath. My cat has a longer attention span.

TPaine said...

The 2nd Amendment today makes even more sense, as the Supremes have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the people. Since there is no armed force available to protect us, we are obligated to protect ourselves, and guns are the only means of doing so effectively.

And since we now have to deal with rogue cops, even moreso. Every home must become an armed home.

Anonymous said...

This business is getting way out of hand.

otterhauser said...

A high school principal? And we wonder why our kids are so incredibly undereducated in the classroom!

SWIFT said...

Mark Neish's knowledge of history seems to be as limited as his knowledge of guns. Academics are historically the first ones interred when a tyrannical government moves into a police state. He may demonstrate a new found set of cajones while fighting off the thugs with a butter knife when the thugs come. If I were his neighbor, I'd do nothing to aid him even though I'll be locked and loaded with one of his hated assault rifles.

Lefties are useless eaters and not worthy of being saved.

AntiCitizenOne said...

"Do you think your little shotgun or handgun will protect you from the government?"

Here's the thing - who's the one advocating for bans on more effective weapons like select-fire assault rifles and heavy ordnance? They deprive us of effective tools to fight a military force, then they create their own self-fulfilling prophecy.

Why don't you ask the US Army and the Russians how blindingly successful they have been in Iraq, Afghanistan with the insurgents and the mujahideen who were equipped inferiorly and yet still the mujahideen were the darlings of the gun-grabbers and their collectivist allies.

Why don't you ask General Westmoreland how successful he was against the NVA and the Viet Cong.

Why don't you ask any German WWII vet how successful they were against the partisans?

Why don't you look in a history book and see how successful General Cornwallis was against our Colonial Army.

HammerHead said...

It seems that the "insurgents" in Afghanistan and Iraq fared quite well against the might of the US. Besides it that's not enough we have the US Constitution on our side and all of our Military has sworn to uphold it.

Cocked, locked and ready to rock.
HammerHead out...

Pericles said...

Isn't that guy the pointy haired boss on Dilbert?

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised even Mike keeps missing the point with regards to insufferable idiots like Mark Neish. The point is that there is no argument eloquent or logical enough to clear the distorted lens through which Mr. Neish views reality.
Unfortunately, history has shown that Mr. Neish and millions more just like him have likely only achieved clarity of thought at precisely the wrong moment - that moment occuring while standing at the edge of a freshly dug trench with a death squad taking aim.

Dedicated_Dad said...

I enjoy asking such morons if they've ever actually READ the Bill of Rights...

(1) "*CONGRESS* shall make no law..."
Q: But any State "House" may then make whatever laws they want? WHY NOT?!

(2) "...The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED "
Q: Ergo, NOBODY -- not the states, not the Feds - NOBODY - may infringe -- RIGHT? How? Under what authority?

It AMAZES me how these otherwise apparently intelligent people cannot READ!

Anonymous said...

For the nimrod who threatens to take away my guns, I just might get him with a 'silent' crossbow and he will never hear it coming. Just offering an alternative

Anonymous said...

Having earned a medical doctorate, a Master's and a couple of assorted undergrad degrees, my experience with the EdDs is that they're academic bottom-feeders.

"Doctor" Neish is a typical educated man now: He substitutes slogans, cliche and personal attacks for reason. He hasn't a clue, has no ability to obtain one and wouldn't recognize it if you gave it to him on a silver platter with a red ribbon.

He shouldn't be taken seriously at any level. (It's doubtful he's ever taken himself seriously, given his devotion to postmodernism.) He's another sad little troll, given a slot in the dead tree media to try to stir up circulation.

Years back, I had a discussion with another educated imbecile who threw down the "What-good-is-your-gun-gonna-do-against-the-Army?" meme. My reply went something like this:

The more dedicated and trained the military and the more sophisticated the weapons systems, the more reliant they are on complex civilian infrastructure. Everything from daycare for the pilot's kids to feeding tank crews to delivering parts for satellite uplinks requires complete cooperation of civilians.

Disrupting and degrading that system is well within the reach of nearly anyone with scant training and organization, even down to the level of a single operator.

Revisionist history aside, the Nazi regime enjoyed widespread support from the populace to the very end of the war. The reason the Soviet Union collapsed, virtually without a shot in peacetime was because it no longer did.

The Left seldom considers that military might fail to follow illegal orders. Unthinkable is the idea that the military might find itself without food, fuel, clothing, shelter or support from an oppressed but actively resisting civilian population.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, this is why the left is so terrified of an armed populace. It is entirely at odds with the Authoritarian fantasies they enjoy so dearly.

Anonymous said...

Well said Sir and thanks.

To the "mind numbingly ignorant hoplophobes"... (God, how true that is Mike) Come and get them.... When you get the reponse you were not expecting, cry elsewhere.

Link passed along to a few friends for further disemination....

Taz, FL

Anonymous said...

"The Left seldom considers that military might fail to follow illegal orders. Unthinkable is the idea that the military might find itself without food, fuel, clothing, shelter or support from an oppressed but actively resisting civilian population."

The left makes another mistake that's even more fundamental. The military does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to the people of the United States. It is made up of us, our mothers and fathers, our wives and husbands, our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters. Can you think of a single war our military has lost when it had the support of the American people behind it? Can you think of a single war it won when it did not? Do you think the American people would support a war against themselves?

Any attempt to order our military to conduct operations against our own people would cause a similar breakup to the one that occurred in 1861 as soldiers left their units and streamed north or south as their conscience demanded.

I'm reminded of a scene we all saw on the network news of a huge crowd in Moscow surrounding the Kremlin while being watched by tanks and BMP's of the USSR's internal security force. An American reporter asked one tank crewman what would happen if their commanders ordered them to open fire on the crowd. He said, "We will shoot. But we will miss!"

Does the left for a moment think that our military has any less regard for our people than what was shown by that Russian tanker?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Neish should read, "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross in addition to the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions.

If there are at least 3 million gun owners willing to take up arms, that means we can have anywhere from 1.5 to 1 million or so "hit teams" working independently of each other to eliminate enemies of the Republic and its Constitution.

Firefights in the streets is NOT the way to fight this next civil war.

The feds, states, counties and cities all combined do NOT have the resources to investigate or stop such a monumental effort by said "hit teams". Even if they catch or foil half of them, the guilty legislators, judges and etc. will still not survive.

Even if there were only 5,000 "hit teams" (that's 100 avg per state), the authoritah does not have the resources to defend or defeat such an effort.

And, we've yet to discus what percentage of the military will actually join the citizenry against a tyrannical, overreaching government. I personally think, having five local military installations in my area, it will be much closer to 70-80%!

Just sayin'


Dedicated_Dad said...

Anonymous (January 9, 2012 9:19 PM) said:" For the nimrod who threatens to take away my guns, I just might get him with a 'silent' crossbow and he will never hear it coming. Just offering an alternative"

Actually, since most bullets are supersonic, you NEVER hear "the one that gets you" as it arrives BEFORE the report.

What matters is that they understand as clearly as necessary that = should they push things TOO far - there WILL be a "one that gets them" and they will NEVER hear it coming!

Drew Rinella said...

What a mind-numbing ass. The militia act of 1903 pretty much sinks his war of 1812 argument. Some history teacher.

In addition, the coward doesn't allow commenting on his article unless you sign up for an account.