"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

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!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Less ipso, and more facto.

[brother-dour.livejournal.com]

Sorry. Channeling my inner gun-grabber there.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

It happens. No worries.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Okaaay. Now that you've gotten that off your chest, how about dealing with what I've actually said.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I think, indeed that was the point I was trying to make. Guns are a lot of things; but in my specific case, that pistol was simply a mercy tool.

It is not that I am a 'gun nut' nor even a 'gun supporter'. I just find the alternatives presented so far as a Final Solution totes unacceptable. As long as ballistic weapons continue to be obtainable by anyone - so-called "law enforcement" included, it's status quo.

By the way, I do not allow weapons of any kind in my venue. All business people and city officials have the authority to ban conceal or open carry sidearms. Except for a few redneck smalldicks who get histrionic media scrutiny, no one is walking around Georgia sportin' a six shooter.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

So why do you oppose the 2nd Amendment on your venue? Do you hate the Constitution of the land of the free, home of the brave?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

That is a fair and valid question. The answer is 'set and setting'.

I don't really have much of a choice. My liability insurance won't allow it, unless the holder is active law enforcement.

Our security company has it as a contractual codicil that patrons must be notified that no weapons of any kind are allowed. Their liability insurance won't cover them on jobs that allow carry, and they don't think guns in large crowds of partying young people, alcohol, loud music and dark areas is the safest situation. Bad setting.

And my mind set is that this particular setting, barring the very rare robbery or lone-nut, does not trump my obligation to keep my patrons from potential harm. And my patrons expect us to keep them as safe as we can, while still maintaining a profitable business.

Instead of "what if's" I look at "what's likely". Just because it was the second listed does not make it the second most important right in the US constitution's Top Ten Rights as voted by Founding Fathers, etc....

Thanks for allowing me to elaborate.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You're welcome.

[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.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Glad I got that "lone nut" comment in early.

And Mike Vanderboegh is another principled sovereign patriot living off of marxist disability checks from the government. Why are these people always such Bundy-esque caricatures?

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Because when using individual activity to make a point about a entire group, your mileage may vary.

[paft.livejournal.com]

And when the individual in question is talking to cheering crowds, his ability to influence their behavior is not imaginary.

Do you think the Nuremburg verdict on Streicher was an injustice?

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

"And when the individual in question is talking to cheering crowds, his ability to influence their behavior is not imaginary."

I actually agree with this; altho as I read it the first thing that popped into my mind was "No Justice No Peace" (Maxine Walters) at the outset of the King Riots.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Your point being...?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Serious question: have you ever heard of the Sturmabteilungen or the Night of the Long Knives? The Schutzstaffel? The murder of Walter Rathenau? Hate propaganda didn't make SA men shoot people in cold blood or the SS dash babies' brains out. Police agencies run amuck with no supervision caused that to happen. Streicher in any event was rather less relevant to what happened in the Holocaust killing fields than people like Eichmann, Heydrich, and Himmler. Or Erich Koch. Or Odilo Globocnik.

If you're under the impression that Nazis started killing people because Streicher wrote an odious pornographic hateful newspaper, well, there were plenty of precursors to Streicher from before German unification to 1918. Why didn't the German Empire see mass murders of Jews in WWI? For that matter, why didn't Austria-Hungary, as there Karl Lueger was a proto-Hitler in Vienna!

Sorry Paft, words don't have magical powers. Words backed by bullets and the recognition that backtalking Hitler earns you a bullet in the head do.

[paft.livejournal.com]

U; Serious question: have you ever heard of the Sturmabteilungen or the Night of the Long Knives?

Yes.

U: The Schutzstaffel?

Yes.

U: The murder of Walter Rathenau?

Yes.

U: Hate propaganda didn't make SA men shoot people in cold blood or the SS dash babies' brains out.

Actually, the Nuremburg court, and quite a few people who studied the Nazi era afterwards, came to the conclusion that it played a pretty significant role in normalizing that kind of violence and making it palatable to large numbers of Germans.

U: Streicher in any event was rather less relevant to what happened in the Holocaust killing fields than people like Eichmann, Heydrich, and Himmler.

Here's what Himmler had to say about him:

"In times to come when the story of the reawakening of the German people is written, and when the next generation will be unable to understand how the German people could ever have been friendly with the Jews, it will be said that Julius Streicher and his weekly newspaper were responsible for a good part of the education about the enemy of mankind."

U: Why didn't the German Empire see mass murders of Jews in WWI? For that matter, why didn't Austria-Hungary, as there Karl Lueger was a proto-Hitler in Vienna!

Because WWI did not involve the rise of a wildly anti-Semitic demagogue like Adolph Hitler. At the time, in fact, Germany was considered a pretty good place for Jews to live.

Do I really need to outline for you the differences between pre WWI and post WWI Germany?

Nobody is claiming that words have "magical powers." But one of the primary lessons learned from the twentieth century is that they do have power and can influence human behavior on a massive scale.

Or maybe you think the power of advertising is just a big myth?

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Which group? Ammosexuals, sovereign citizens, hypocritical government check cashers? Or perhaps a Venn diagram overlap of the three?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I had to google 'ammosexual'.

WTF.

But "Lone Nut" is the very definition of a blogger!

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

In my opinion, until someone actually does something actually violent, the followers of this moron are, at worse, vandals.

Are the blog readers CAPABLE of violence?

Well sure! Aren't we all? :)

[paft.livejournal.com]

rd: In my opinion, until someone actually does something actually violent...

Throwing bricks through windows is violent.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Blogs have influence? Well, technically LJ shuts down every time Russia has a serious political debate but I don't think that indicates anyone with an LJ has 'influence.' Blogs are one thing, a mass news machine run by a multi-millionaire is something else again.

[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.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Yeah! That guy!