Go here and scroll down through the comments. On page two you will find this comment from Dave Workman:
You should all read this.Presumably some of you are "molon labian bedwetters"
To which one Brent44 posits this, in reaction to my statement: "How is it, exactly, that you can 'fix alleged problems' of 594? It is an unconstitutional infringement. AGAIN, YOU DON'T COMPROMISE ON ESSENTIAL LIBERTY -- YOU DEFEAT THOSE WHO TRY TO TAKE IT. Tell that to Gottlieb, Mr. Workman. There is no deal that he can make that we can't wreck with armed civil disobedience. Get that? NONE!"
What does this mean in practical terms? Applying these statements literally with the most straightforward interpretation possible, I come up with:Mike Vanderboegh does not want Judge Ben Settle to issue rulings to in the case of NORTHWEST SCHOOL OF SAFETY, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. BOB FERGUSON, et al., Defendant(s).In particular, Mike Vanderboegh does not want Judge Ben Settle to issue an injunction barring enforcement of I-594 as sought by the plaintiffs. Alan Gottlieb is one of the plaintiffs in this case.Mike Vanderboegh considers any potential rulings by Judge Ben Settle barring enforcement of portions of I-594 to be a "deal".Mike Vanderboegh is willing to "wreck" rulings using "armed civil disobedience".Mike Vanderboegh is willing to use "armed civil disobedience" to stop rulings from being issued.
The next logical set of conclusions I draw is that:Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use armed violence to kill the Judge.Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use armed violence to kill the plaintiffs, and or defendants.Mike Vanderboegh is planning to use violence to storm the courtroom in order to halt rulings from being issued.I participated at the I-594 "I will not comply rally" and even signed the document which I swore to not comply with the initiative.I used to admire Mike Vanderbough -- but not anymore. As far as I can tell, Mike Vanderbough is completely unhinged, off his rocker, and may even have some anger management issues.
To which Workman replies approvingly: "Brent, you may have cracked a code."
What morons. This moke doesn't understand a. The Three Percent Catechism and b. the concept of armed civil disobedience. By refusing to obey an unconstitutional law we force the "authorities" to either deal with it -- meaning THEY attack US while we are exercising our God-given inalienable rights -- or to choose to refuse to enforce their diktat, hence nullifying it. The choice of violence is theirs, not ours. What part of "No Fort Sumters" don't you understand, Brent?
To leap from that -- from what I said and who I am -- to a conclusion that I would murder judges is complete and utter bullshit. Of course Workman understands that. He's just inciting the Fudds on behalf of his master Gottlieb. It seems I may have gotten under their collective skin. Workman used to pretend some independence of thought from Gottlieb. Now all he can do is slobber, Igor-like, "Yes, master! Yes, master!"
Another reader replied to Brent: "You may want to look up the definition of 'armed civil disobedience'. You always remain civil yet protest/refuse to comply with whatever it is your protesting while retaining your arms. Exercising your right to bear arms while addressing your grievances with that government... It's astounding how many anti-gun people there are on here, pretending to support the 2nd."
Indeed. Thereby proving David Codrea's concept of the "Molon Labians."
LATER: Since Workman apparently has taken me off his mailing list (oh, whatever shall I do?) I didn't see this before I wrote the above -- I had to get it forwarded to me by a reader: House bans open carry in its gallery as SHOT Show opens in Las Vegas
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms — and who is heading to the SHOT Show — issued a statement that is being picked up by the media, starting with Guns.com. While his remark infuriate some people — he is currently the target of blogger Mike Vanderboegh, who operates a site called “Sipsey Street Irregulars,” Gottlieb is also getting considerable support from gun owners who are not happy about the bans, and what precipated them."This is the result of a few stupid extremists on our side who not only handled their firearms unsafely, but made the hundreds of Second Amendment supporters at the rally look foolish,” Gottlieb said in an e-mail that also came to Examiner. “Irresponsible actions get us bad results. Unfortunately, some of the fools in town are on our side. This kind of childish theater hurts our cause. The gun ban crowd is having a field day over this.”
Well, it's nice to know I got the "Igor" relationship right. Note that Workman no longer refers to me as one of the guys who broke the Fast and Furious story as he has in the past. That's already gone down the memory hole as far as he's concerned. And tell me, Alan, just exactly how do you define "our cause" -- you know, the cause that you claim is being "hurt?" Hey pal, I've got news for you, YOU ALREADY FRIGGING LOST THE FIGHT AGAINST 594 AND YOU WANT TO COMPROMISE SOME MORE? That may be your cause, but it sure as hell isn't the cause of liberty.