"Actual Violence"

[paft.livejournal.com]

Some of you might remember something I posted four years ago about right wing thug Mike Vanderboegh and his blog call for loyal patriots to smash the windows of Democratic Party Offices. The result -- surprise surprise! -- was the smashing of windows in several Democratic Party Offices. Mr. Vanderboegh opined that he wasn't promoting "actual violence." “How ambiguous is it if I say break windows? Am I saying kill people, absolutely not,” he said.

As I pointed out, the comments section on his blog didn't exactly jibe with his insistence that, oh mercy no, he wasn't talking about KILLING people. They included:

“Today it was bricks, tomorrow it will be ???? The fuse has been lit.”



“We need to track these highly respectable representatives (cough) down to their residences.
Where we can then present them a Hallmark card (cough) kindly requesting they consider the Contitution when they vote..
Rocks and bricks are optional but torchs, pitch forks, tar and feathers are encouraged!!”

“As we know, our society has its roots in broken windows - not to mention tar-and-feathers (always horrible, often fatal) and bullets!”

“I wonder if the brain dead socialist in Washington would get the idea if it happened a lot more often. 
Would a wrist rocket and some ball bearings help get the idea across?”

“I bought a pistol belt and load bearing harness at the Army/Navy surplus store today. Haven't worn one since 1981. Fits real nice.”

“Good thing 223 ammo is still cheep and available. just bought another 1000 rds for 'target' pratice. these clowns are the best gun and ammo salesman in the world.”

“4" PVC Pipe
End Cap
Portable Compressed Air Tank
Hose
Pipe Fittings
Valve
Expanding Foam for Sabot 
Brick

Paint, Scope, Laser Rangefinder, and compensator optional.

Use of above parts left to the imagination of the reader.”

“They're all whining about bricks......

Just wait until it turns to bullets.”


I was assured by Sandwich warrior that what ol' Mike REALLY meant was not "do what we say, or we'll kill you," but "leave us alone or we'll kill you." "Leave us alone," meaning, "don't vote for or pass any legislation we dislike."

The old dear is in the news again, and that bit about "absolutely not" advocating killing people...? Well, let's just say Mr. Mike has recently confirmed pretty much what a lot of us already know about what "Open Carry" is really all about. While making a speech at an Open Carry Rally he made the following comments:

...“We like to think that all our fellow Americans, even those who plainly state that they are committed to stealing our liberty and our property and attempting to control our very lives, are merely suffering from differences of opinion that can be overcome by the right mix of persuasion or electoral politics,” Vanderboegh said.

“Yet how many of us have tried such methods with every fiber of our being and fallen short?” he continued. “Not because we were wrong, but because those of the other side were impervious to such arguments, to such tactics, for they believe completely in their right to their appetites for our liberty, our property, and our lives with all the religious fervor of a pagan worship of naked power wrapped in a catechism of lies."

These "fellow Americans" who have been unaccountably unconvinced by his earlier "arguments" of hurling bricks through windows, are therefore, he told the crowd, “domestic enemies of the Constitution,” and as such we need to told:

"that failing all other appeals to peaceful means, that the founders’ solution to such tyranny is still available, still potent, and still waiting, for when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote.”

i.e. "be CONVINCED by our arguments, dammit, or we'll shoot you."

I wonder what rationalizations I'll hear from certain quarters if one day one of these maniacs opens fire with his "bullets/votes" on a Democratic Politician -- or just a Democratic voter.

Comments

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

"Lone gunman", it's always that.

I thought perhaps you might be posting about the border vigilantes in Texas, threatening to shoot migrant children. There's a hot-button story.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, there's that. So much to choose from...

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Nothing has seemed to slow Vanderboegh’s penchant for making threats, or at least implied threats. In the wake of the 2012 Newtown, Conn., school massacre, he warned in E-mails sent to more than 1,000 employees of the Connecticut State Police that they risked “initiating hostilities” if they tried to enforce the state’s tough new gun control law. “I personally violated this unconstitutional and tyrannical act by smuggling and by the encouragement of smuggling, defiance and non-compliance on the part of your state’s citizens,” he boasted to the police. And he also seemed to target the Connecticut state senators who voted for a new state gun control law, posting information about where they, their spouses and their children lived, what their phone numbers were, and their photos.

Wow, he's really crazy-pants (http://www.splcenter.org/get%20informed/intelligence%20files/profiles/Michael%20Brian%20Vanderboegh).

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

And he also seemed to target the Connecticut state senators who voted for a new state gun control law, posting information about where they, their spouses and their children lived, what their phone numbers were, and their photos.

I know it is in horribly poor taste and potentially dangerous to the targets, but is doxing illegal? And isn't most of that information public? Otherwise, how could he obtain it?

And yes, he is a crazy pants that is only effective when people like us pay attention to people like him. That linked dossier on him is probably like sweet porn to his ego. He wants to be remembered and not forgotten, like Charles Whitman, Lee Oswald, or Charles De Gaulle. Like it or not, they are all now immortal.

Blowback from the cult of personality, IMHO

Otherwise, he is just another face in a faceless crowd. Old people fear that kind of shit.

[dziga123.livejournal.com]

I never heard about Mike Vanderboegh before, but we all know Sarah Palin. This is from her Facebook page. One of the targets on this map is Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The map was taken down from the page after Giffords was shot, though connection between shooter, map and Palin's gun-related metaphors was never established.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Surveyor's marks!

/that just happen to look like a rifle scope
//Sarah Palin took 5 shots to hit a caribou
//and has been missing everything else ever since

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The map was taken down from the page after Giffords was shot, though connection between shooter, map and Palin's gun-related metaphors was never established.

Given that the shooter had some legitimately crazy ideas about language use, this is probably the understatement of the year in this community.

Broad brush

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

People who throw bricks are going to do it whether someone suggests it or not. And this is 'may/might/could' territory still. No one's been shot because that old man flapped his lips on YouTube.

Allow me to find some parallels to blaming a group for the mouthings of a solo geezer. I sense from this post a broad brush attempt to paint anyone not anti-gun prohibition as dangerous because we are affected by his rhetoric. In other words, this nutjob somehow represents all people who exercise conceal or open carry privileges (as opposed to rights). Right's an not be taken away, but privileges granted by governing authorities can.

Michelle Nunn, (D - well connected daddy) is running for a Senate seat and has more chance than anyone since the last D held that seat in 2002 (Max Cleland D- Wheelchair). However, it was discovered one of her principle donors was a convicted felon and, ahem, an early member of the Black Panthers. Obviously she backpedaled on that one, as the GOP eagerly jumped on this; finally finding some mud that might stick, potentially deadly in a close race in a learning Purple State.

If one fund raiser is associated with a radical cause or an unpopular opinion, does that reflect negatively on everyone? Does it reflect on the candidate?

One devout Christian named Phelps was an ardent believer in the Bible and was as devout as anyone in the church I've ever met. Does he, because of hateful rhetoric, now become a poster child that skeptics and unbelievers can hold up to and say 'here is your loving god in action'?

Is that fair to most Christians who also happen to disagree with Phelp's point of view?

Is it fair to blame Nunn or Democrats in general because of this one person?

If not, then you can apply this to said wingnut. This man does not represent me as a person who enjoys the privilege, nor have I ever hear of him until you made us aware (again) of his existence.

Tonight (we live in the Blue Ridge mountains) I tossed my .38 in the glove box when we went to the drive in theater. Not because I thought we were going to be in danger. I wanted it in case we hit a deer and would make sure it didn't suffer.

Of course, in a gunless society, I imagine a ball bat could eventually do.

tl;dr this man is a lone nut. He does not speak for me or anyone I know.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

I tossed my .38 in the glove box when we went to the drive in theater.

Gun culture! Gun culture! You own one of those evil, deadly killing machines called guns, so you must be evil, too!

[paft.livejournal.com]

No, he is not a "lone nut." He's a blogger with a following, and influential enough to have already incited violence.

Try dealing with that.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You mean the guy who takes the Bible's tenets as seriously as all the people who think Jesus rode Triceratops in Eden and refuse to accept the literal meaning of "This is my body and this is my blood"? Only thing that made him different was openly running a scam to fleece people instead of covertly doing it.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

For a post titled "Actual Violence" i was expecting more actual violence in this post.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's almost as if the guy told us exactly what he meant:

"...that failing all other appeals to peaceful means, that the founders’ solution to such tyranny is still available, still potent, and still waiting, for when democracy turns to tyranny, the armed citizenry still gets to vote.”

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I first read it as Actuarial Violence and wondered what the hell THAT would look like? Dueling assumptions? Mortality Table Tennis? idk...

[paft.livejournal.com]

Sorry to disappoint you, but the shooting is so far "merely" threatened.

I consider that bad enough.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Next time I hear a left winger tell me "X will be first against the wall when the revolution comes," I will be sure to take it 100% literally as opposed to the metaphor it is intended to be.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I know right?

Liberals do love their martyrs and their firing squads. (http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2004/09/the_cult_of_che.html)

[paft.livejournal.com]

If the people saying this have been buying up guns, walking around in public waving them, displaying signs about watering the tree of liberty with blood, forming organized groups and declaring their intention of using those guns on people who disagree with them, then yes, it's wise to see the expression in that case as more than a mere metaphor.

Your entire argument here rests on ignoring reality.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Anyone who's that open in stating such things is harmless because smart revolutionaries know all about dissembling, especially in an Information Age.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

For the sake of an actual discussion, I think most would agree that this guy, at the very least, is a potentially dangerous nut job.
The question is what to do about it (or him, not sure where you want to go with this). As usual, while you are excellent in presenting
problems, but only imply solutions.
Do you think that the government should shut down this guy's blog, take away his guns, and perhaps even throw him in jail? Or do you think
no one should own a gun due to the potential misuse?
Since you and fizzyland seem to think that "lone gunman" are not anomalies I am seriously curious as to what you would propose as a solution
for both the actual and potential gun violence in this country.

[paft.livejournal.com]

G: Do you think that the government should shut down this guy's blog, take away his guns, and perhaps even throw him in jail?

At this point no, but if his threats of political violence become any more explicit and specific, charges of sedition might not be a bad idea.

G: Or do you think no one should own a gun due to the potential misuse?

As I have repeatedly said, no, I am not in favor of a blanket ban on guns.

My point here is actually about the willingness of many people on the right to overlook or excuse away explicit calls for violence from people like this guy. It's a point so far proven by several posters here.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't understand how the same people who find free speech sacrosanct and important simultaneously claim it has no consequences.

[paft.livejournal.com]

They seem to think the power of advertising is a myth.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

In your opinion, who exactly are these people?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

People like that guy have bravado a mile wide and substance an inch deep.