Using his trademark exaggeration as an excuse to get on the soap box, Mike Vanderboegh claimed the Christian Science Monitor's tribute to Jim and Sarah Brady was akin to hagiography. He used such words as "pimps" and "deifies" to describe what I thought was nothing more than a fitting acknowledgment of their efforts on the 30th anniversary of the shooting.
But, once up on that soap box, he let us have his usual incendiary rhetoric.
"Okay. . . If you try to take our firearms we will kill you." Our God-given, natural and inalienable rights are not subject to modification by law or negotiation. Do not extrapolate from your own cowardice and believe that if you are lucky enough to game a corrupt political system and get what you want legislatively, that we, like you, would not resist federal tyranny. We will fight, even though it means our deaths. This is an alien concept to most collectivists but it is nonetheless true. Pass another law -- any law -- that further restricts our free access to arms and you'll have a civil war on your hands in short order. You would have to stack up millions of our bodies to achieve your stated purpose and we would not go quietly without making that trade more than a one-to-one ratio.I'm beginning to understand what Zorroy sees in this guy. He does have a way with words. Take the sentence right in the middle of the paragraph. "Pass another law -- any law -- that further restricts our free access to arms and you'll have a civil war on your hands in short order." I didn't want to take it out of context, but do you think the context changes anything about it? I don't see any qualifiers or disclaimers, do you? So, we can take that literally then?
These obviously exaggerated bouts of ranting wouldn't be so bad except he has a huge audience, 600 readers and over 5,000 visitors a day, average. How many in his audience do you think recognize the pomposity and the preposterous nature of that statement? How many realize that there have been such laws and there continue to be, yet there has been no civil war, nor is there likely to be?
And, talking about exaggerations, what did you think about those "millions of our bodies" which he's predicting will be sacrificed fighting against tyranny? Is that a great example of grandiose victimism, or what?
What's your opinion? Do you agree with Zorroy that Mike V. is extremely eloquent? Do you agree with me that he says some extremely crazy things?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.