"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy
"Son, let me explain something to you. You don't poke a wolverine with a sharp stick unless you want your balls ripped off." -- Grandpa Vanderboegh's Rule of Life #32.
This election cycle has seen much pulling of media hair, gnashing of RINO teeth and rending of collectivist garments over the concept of what Sharron Angle called "Second Amendment remedies."
As Josh Horwitz, the El Guapo of citizen disarmament moaned in a column back in June:
In January, she told conservative radio show talk host Lars Larson the following, "You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years. I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out." She reiterated this idea just two weeks ago, telling the Reno Gazette-Journal that a recent increase in gun sales nationwide "tells me that the nation is arming. What are they arming for if it isn't that they are so distrustful of government? They're afraid they'll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways ... If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"
Seems a reasonable and prudent question to me, sitting as I do over in the ignored and despised part of the country where careful people who wish to remain free are buying beans and bullets, cleaning their rifles and awaiting events. But El Guapo, wetting his pants over the Founders' solution to tyranny, almost shrieked:
The Republican Party has two options: 1) Firmly denounce the ridiculous idea that there are "Second Amendment remedies" to questions of policy, or; 2) Own up to their role as co-conspirators in the rising level of insurrectionist violence we see in our country today.
Well, it seems that (at least in Texas) El Guapo got his demands satisfied. Not that the GOP will benefit from denouncing Stephen Broden.
The Dallas Morning News reports in high anxiety that "Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table.'"
In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.
"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."
Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."
"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.
Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.
"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option."
Of course the Founders would have heartily concurred. But the local head of the GOP isn't having any of that:
That drew a quick denunciation from the head of the Dallas County GOP, who called the remarks "inappropriate." . . . Jonathan Neerman, head of the Dallas County Republican Party, said he's never heard Broden or other local Republican candidates advocate violence against the government. "It is a disappointing, isolated incident," Neerman said. He said he plans to discuss the matter with Broden's campaign.
Stating the obvious, that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" in Kennedy's words, is now a mortal sin.
Now I could spend a lot of time and effort recalling original sentiments of the Founders on this subject, but our enemies view them as discredited dead old white guys.
So let me put it in a way that is contemporary and direct.
If anybody, ANYBODY, tries to take any more of our God-given, inalienable liberties we, the Three Percent, will kill them.
Or, if we must personalize it for the Horwitz's of the world, "If you try to take any more of our liberty or property we will kill you."
Is this ambiguous? Is it so hard to understand? It is the wolverine's growl from deep in the brush. It is the rattlesnake's rattle.
Angle and Broden are merely stating the obvious. Indeed, they are warning against the possibility of civil war -- trying thereby to avoid the inevitable carnage. And for this they are denounced and despised by people who are supposed to be on their side.
The Angles and Brodens of the world -- who see things clearly yet are denounced both by their political enemies and alleged friends for doing so -- are not a danger to this country, if by "this country" we agree that it is the same one that the Founders crafted. But the collectivists and their corrupt fellow travelers do not represent that country, that vision of America. They represent another twisted, evil vision, another country run under their "benevolent" tyranny. It is the country who commands, with a straight and kindly face, "We insist on securing your 'health care' even if we have to kill you to accomplish it."
Given that we, the Three Percent, exist, the Angles and Brodens are really just trying to save the Horwitz's of that country -- with whom we share a language and a border but little else -- from the darker angels of their nature, from the unintended consequences of the collectivists' voracious appetites for our liberty and property.
Instead of denouncing them, the Horwitz's should humbly thank them, and back away slowly from the wolverine they have been poking with a sharp stick for a very long time.
For the wolverine is just about out of patience and somebody's balls are going to get ripped off. And that's what the Founders would have called a "Second Amendment remedy."