Snowflakes in Hell

The press seeks these people out. I was once at a VCDL meeting (for the Bloomberg Gun Giveaway) and several members of the ‘press’ tried to interview (on camera) the (very obviously) mentally challenged (grown) child of one of the other attendees. The press have ZERO integrity. For every letter like this (there was probably only the one) the editors of this paper no doubt put a hundred reasonable appeals in the circular file…

In what way is the writer trying to foment a civil war?

Words mean things, and PSH from our side is still PSH.

I didn’t say he was, but I said if people get that impression, we’re toast. A lot of these guys believe that you have to draw the line in the sand now, and dare the voting public to cross it. That’s essentially what Mr. Vanderboegh is doing here.

Threats of violence in response to political action don’t go over well with the public in a stable Republic. I think it actually makes the likelihood of failing to get a political solution far less likely, because it will turn the public off to the message, and scare them into electing representative who will get these dangerous gun owners “under control.”

There does need to be a line in the sand, but now is not the time to draw it. You do that when your back is against the wall, not when you’re winning the fight politically.

I’d rather they find people like this, occasionally, as long as they can’t accurately tie them to anyone who’s important.

No, seriously. The American public follows the fallacy of the golden mean. If the craziest gun nut around is talking about blocking the assault weapon ban, he or she will be seen as crazy as it gets. If the craziest gun nut is frothing at the mouth about machine guns, there’s something in the middle that is great for compromise.

Mike Vanderbough as adopted the position as the Malcolm X of the gun-rights fight. He’s as extreme and in-your-face as he can be, and he revels in “frightening the white people.” He is the author of a book being published in parts on the web, Absolved. Give it a read. It’s further out there than John Ross’s Unintended Consequences.

There’s a group of people, and as far as I can tell it’s growing, that not only believes that we’re headed for violent revolution, they want it.

And what scares me is, sometimes I think they’re right.

Don’t be surprised that the media gloms onto the extremes. Sensationalism sells.

Gonna have to agree with bob on this. For that matter, are you saying that if the cops came around to every residence and forced registering of all guns and owners you would just let them? A big problem with this blurb is that they don’t show the preceding letter. And searching by Bialek just shows me that the guy makes a habit of sending in letters to the editor, I can’t find his comments on guns.

Check out westernrifleshooters (blogspot).

III

Gonna have to agree with bob on this. For that matter, are you saying that if the cops came around to every residence and forced registering of all guns and owners you would just let them?

I don’t think we should take that lying down, but I also think shooting the cops coming to do it won’t accomplish anything. In fact, the most likely reaction is going to be “See, we told you these people were dangerous.” I think there are ways to escalate the situation, without bringing it to outright shooting, but that’s another conversation.

But the point is, we’re not at that point yet. In fact, we’re not anywhere close.

I’m with Mike. Our backs aren’t quite all the way up against the wall yet. we do have a few inches. But it’s close enough.

If national registration and licensing passed…

I think you’re missing the point. We’re not near that now! And with Heller, we took another albeit small step away from it. So scaring whitey doesn’t help, it pushes us back closer to it. Instead of scaring whitey, EDUCATE HIM. We can make the undecided our friends through education, or our enemies through fear. Which do you want?

Sebastian, with all due respect, you’re playing into the hands of the enemies. If national registration and licensing passed, being a patently unjust and unconstitutional malum prohibitum law, it could not bind in conscience. Because it cannot bind in conscience, no one with his moral sense screwed on straight could condemn another who chose not to comply. But what would happen to those who choose not to comply? And who will have “started it?”

I’m not blaming anyone for not complying Oldsmoblogger. We aren’t yet faced with a national registration scheme. It’s not even on the table. What I am decrying is writing to a newspaper, and telling the public you’ll start shooting the bastards. I would also point out that the founding fathers did everything possible to reconcile themselves to the crown even after the shooting had started. Look up “Olive Branch Petition”

I don’t deny there is a role for agitators, but the fact is, we’re not losing the political battle right now, because we’ve gotten a lot more people on board with gun rights in this decade. I don’t want to jeopardize that. There are plenty of gun owners who aren’t going to want to be associated with a movement that’s associated with civil unrest, let alone the majority non-gun owning public.

How HTown, so why aren’t you shooting yet? If this government is that unlawful and out of control, the time for revolution is now.

They’ll destroy people for making moonshine too, or importing lobsters in the wrong types of bags. We’re not the only ones who have grievances against the government because they’ve made a difficult and nonsensical regulatory framework, and told people to work in it.

The problem is, the vast majority of this country is willing to live with the regulatory framework. That’s what you have to change. Make people aware of it. Make them see how stupid it is, and maybe they’ll stop voting for the fools who pass these kinds of laws. In a Republican government, that’s pretty much what you’re dealing with up until you decide it’s time for revolution. There is no “awkward period”: there’s politics and there’s war. I think we have an obligation to work within the political sphere until we’ve exhausted every possibility.

Because the fact is, because we’re a Republic, if war starts, you won’t have a lot of people behind you. Without that, the outcome is pretty much determined. It’s a man’s right to choose to fight and die, rather than submit, but fight and die is probably what’s going to happen if you don’t have at least a third of the population behind you.

y long-term objective is the end of NFA and GCA, along with national Vermont-Alaska, concealed or open as the law-abiding citizen prefers. I might not get there, but that’s the direction I’m going. I won’t trade one of those goals to get microstamping on 9mm only.

I don’t disagree with your objective in the least. We’re not going to get everything we want because the vast majority of the population disagrees with us. It’s not just a bare majority, it was something like 77% of friggin Alabamans did not agree with legal machine gun ownership.

Now, I’m not giving up on that 77%. We had pretty strong majorities for handgun prohibition at one point too, and managed to turn that around. But it’ll be a long way bringing enough people around to get there. The political process can’t guarantee we will never have to retreat again, or that we’ll ever turn those 77% around to our cause. We might not. But I do think we have to try, because the alternative is bloodshed. And I don’t think that will end well for our side if it comes to that.

I dissagree that winning over the voting public is the strategy. You can’t. All democracies vote themselves into oblivion, which is why the Founding Fathers added Constitutional limitations. Those Constitutional limitations are the only thing ensuring our basic liberties and they are actively being subverted. Hell, Thomas Jefferson even recognized that the “Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants..”.

We are in that awkward phase, because the constitutional brakes have fallen off and there is usually only one way to put them back on.

III

I think those are the questions. Further political engagement only slows the decline, but the inevitable is so horrific I still participate. The colonists didn’t wait very long though, and they put up with less than we are.

Do we have 3% yet?

III

I wouldn’t go as far as to say pointless. After all, a letter to the editor is a political action. It’s the Soap Box.

It’s the Ballot Box that has me a mite concerned. McCain, Obama, Barr? That has to be some kind of cosmic joke, right?

Some days I am more optimistic than others, but I don’t deny that right now it feels a little like 1860 must have. If we get back to the point where sticking with the political process would require retreat from where we are now, I would call that a strong hint.

III

So, what is your definition of ‘backs against the wall’? The shoulder blades? The vertebrae? How much pressure?

And I keep seeing folks bitterly (heh) clinging (double heh) to the militia argument, despite that being specifically rejected by the Supremes.

Would you rather everyone hold their tongues and just start shooting? What do you think the headlines would be then? “Gun Nut Snaps”? “Officers Killed in Ambush During Confiscation Sweep”?

Flatly stating ‘if you do x, I will respond with y’ is Fair Warning. Keeping quiet is part of the reason that we needed the Heller decision. Had our fathers been organized the way we are, there would have been no GCA ‘68. Had our grandfathers been this organized, there would have been no NFA, or at the very least, Frank Miller’s attorney would have shown up to the SCOTUS hearing.

You and Bitter are forging a new life together, one that will hopefully include little Snowflakes, and that is fine. Actually, more than fine, it’s wonderful. But that also means that you have your own agenda here, which is also fine. It’s perfectly acceptable, at least to me, to be an Armed White Person (to mangle Uncle’s metaphor), but please consider the possibility that if the Mike Vanderboeghs of the world have any sort of impact, your back will never touch the wall.

Lastly, consider that all this has nothing to do with ‘armed revolution’ but more to do with ‘if I cannot have your respect, I will settle for your fear’. Putting on nice clothes and going to court hasn’t worked with private property (Kelo), privacy (FISA), habeas corpus (Patriot Act), ad nauseum.

Allow me to point out that Mike Vanderboegh wrote an excellent series of essays (six or seven, if memory serves) under the umbrella title, “Rock ‘Em.” They’re available at a number of sites, but searching on the last name and title would probably be best for finding them.

I have said before that I consider Mike Vanderboegh to be our Thomas Paine. I’m not kidding (and he’s a better writer than John Ross, with all due respect to Mr. Ross).

Three…it rhymes with free.

Back against the wall means that the second amendment is being relegated into meaningless, not through constitutional amendment, but through extralegal means, and we’re powerless to stop it politically. That does not describe our present situation.

But yes, I am suggesting that people either need to get involved in the political fight, or start shooting. There is no awkward period where you get to do nothing in the political sphere, because it’s all pointless, but you’re waiting for the shooting to start. What is Mike V. doing to defeat anti-gun politicians and help elect pro-gun politicians? What pro-gun politicians has he been donating money to? When was the last time he wrote a letter to the editor that was trying to change hearts and minds rather than saying “don’t do X, or I’ll shoot you?”

If we don’t end up with our backs against a wall it will be because a lot of people worked very hard to avoid that possibility politically. I won’t deny there’s a line that the government can’t cross, and what to do if the line gets crossed. That’s something to be discussed among ourselves. But not something to be discussing in front of the people we need on our side in order to avoid it coming to that.

Vanderboegh is a crank. Pure and simple. He is always agitating for somebody to “push the reset button.” The more you read of his stuff the more it becomes clear that he is the lunatic fringe. Apparently a democracy that votes against his principles is a government that needs to be overthrown. Some bloggers that I respect give him favorable exposure, but I do not think it benefits our side at all.

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. -W. Churchill

Since the keystone to the Constitution currently hangs by a single vote, I have to conclude that our freedom is in peril. Prior to any revolution, perhaps we might arrange a final political warning? A million armed citizens peacably assembled in the streets of D.C., petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, might convince them that we are as serious about liberty as were the Founders.

The People are the sovreign in this Republic, and free men do not ask permission to exercise their Rights. Now is the time when we can win without bloodshed. I pray it goes no further, but I will be on the front lines if the enemies of our Constitution attempt to outlaw our Right to keep and bear arms. If the 2nd Amendment falls, there is no Constitution. If the Heller decision had gone the other way, we would be building towards a civil war right now.

Since the keystone to the Constitution currently hangs by a single vote, I have to conclude that our freedom is in peril. Prior to any revolution, perhaps we might arrange a final political warning? A million armed citizens peacably assembled in the streets of D.C., petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, might convince them that we are as serious about liberty as were the Founders.

Or it’ll be taken by Congress as a threat of violence against the government and they will have the political cover they need to disarm us all, because Mr. and Mrs. Middle America will think “Damn, that shit is scary.”

The people that are sovereign, the vast majority of them don’t think they live under a repressive government and aren’t even close to thinking about overthrowing it. Those are the people we need to win this. Scaring them, by having them link gun rights to civil unrest, isn’t going to work. It’s one thing to suggest that an armed society helps keep the government under control. I think most people can grok that. It’s another thing to suggest the time is fast approaching for revolution.

Based on what Sebastian and Bitter had posted, I thought the letter that Mike Vanderboegh wrote was a lot more incendiary than it was. Thanks, Sebastian for posting the actual link. Actually I think the letter is a salutary wake up to those idiots that think that registrataion and licensing is responsible sensible gun regulation.

There is no Federal call for nationwide registration and licensing. To be truthful why do the BATF need it? They can always call the FFL holders to get information and the FFL holders will give it.

I do not know how many of you are really familiar with FFL regulations. The 4473 is held in perpetuity to the FFL and when he dies, retires etc., the records are given to the BATF. The FFL also has a bound book which is a record of transactions. To give an example, the year we had a sniper hunting people in the metropalitan Washington area. his deadly accuracy and randomness scared a lot of people. There was no way my carrying a gun could have save me in that circumsatnce and people wanted the sniper caught fast.

BATF simply called all the FFL holders and asked, politely,if we had sold any rifles with those characteristics. Guess what, the FFL holders agreed that it was their civic duty to provide this information. Now in hindsight that effort was in naught. They had the wrong car and the guns was bought in another part of the country.

That is why many people prefer to have guns without any paper. In other words guns bought, traded between private individuals. Guns that are transferred between generations.

The best way to stop registration schemes is to fight in the legislature when they are proposed and if they are imposed to passively resist. Refuse to register, much like the residents of DC are doing now, due to the onerous burdern of registration.

We will know if the police will start going door to door to insure registration . The 4th amendment will be used to deny access. People will bury and hide their weapons. NO need to start a revolt now when we are turning back decades of laws that are against guns

Of course, after America settled down after the revolution, Paine became an enthusiastic supporter of the French revolution. We all know how that ended.

So did Jefferson, I think. Nobody’s perfect.

Licensing and registration don’t matter, as long as you can trust the government. Unfortunately, most governments that do this (D.C., Chicago, etc.) can’t be trusted.

So, our only choice is to fight for precedence that will prevent any arbitrary restrictions, seizures, or bans. If that happens, licensing and registration would never matter.

P.S. The Civil War was not justified by any metric. It was a preemptive move by the Confederacy to protect slavery in their lands. They were basically traitors to the Republic.

Sebastian said: “There is no entity called “government” which can be frightened into submission. You have to persuade people, and work to get politicians who agree with you elected. That’s the only way you can affect change in a representative government.”

Of course, you are right about that. In a pure Democracy, that would be the only way, but we are a Republic, a nation of law that protects the minority, or the one, from tyranny of the majority. If everyone in the nation besides me believed that guns should be outlawed, my Rights would still be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

As Peter pointed out, the average LEO will probably not be enthusiastic about going door to door to confiscate arms if gunfights break out every 10th house. They want to raise their families and grow old, like we do. Politicians are just ordinary people, too. If they realize that their physical existence is in peril because of the violations of their constituent’s Constitutionally protected Rights, they are probably going to change their behavior to better ensure their personal, if not political, survival.

Look, I know this is all speculation and hypothetical. I hope the situation never arises when U.S. citizens have to wrest their freedoms back from a tyrannical government, but if it is not widely known that there are those of us who stand ready, that makes it more likely that we will have to fight to preserve our liberty.

Peter, that’s a good point about Mike’s clear warning serving as an offset to the “for the children” propaganda, and as a preventative measure.

I’m not sure where my line is. I think I’ll start listing the grievances online, Declaration of Independence-style, and wait until it’s an intolerable list. If my list and I dissapear, maybe that’ll serve as the canary-in-the-coalmine….

It’s not that the 97% are actively against the 3%. In fact, the vast majority of them don’t even think about you at all. They’re too busy watching reality tv, or playing xbox360, or taking in the latest Batman movie, or watching Oprah, or blah blah blah to think about the erosion of our consitutional republic.

Threats to start shooting won’t inspire them to start thinking. It’ll inspire them to freak the hell out. You’re talking about disturbing the comforts of their day-to-day existence. They won’t join you. They’ll cheer as you’re put down. You start shooting, you become a threat to them. And the idea of liberty will die at the hands of a mob.

Sebastian’s right. Education and knowledge are the key, not force or submission. After all, John Adams said, “Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.”

Our government doesn’t use fear as it’s main motivating factor. It uses the promise of ease, the giving up of responsibility in exchange for the giving up of rights. It’s a Faustian bargain that most people are willing to make to one extent or another. It’s not tyranny, it’s sloth.

anon,

You misinterpret the 3%: it’s the percentage of the Colonial population that actually took up arms against the British. About a third of the total population were Loyalist, or tended in that direction, the majority just wanted to be left alone. I’m sure they would have been playing with their Xboxes if they had them.

And apathy is the greatest problem, followed by politicians and wannabe politicians promising stuff.

And after they ‘freak out’ about gunfire, they’ll settle down because the Oprah rerun is on at 10. A more apparent danger is that if the political class is sent packing, who will replace them? I’ll bet it’ll be largely from the folks over at HuffPo, DailyKos, and Crooks & Liars, since we revere all of the BoR, none of us will be willing to shut them up, lest the same thing happen to us. That, I believe is the greater danger, that the cure will end up being worse than the disease.

Pardon me, Sebastion, but when is the last time you read the title to your own blog? It carries the same message as Vanderboegh’s letter. Not that I disagree with where you are coming from either but very little of the change in public perception is due to the efforts of pro gun organizations or gun owners. It is primarily due to several high profile events either involving abuses by our government against citizens or outright attack from without (as I’m sure everyone here is aware).

Go find someone who is not a gun owner. Someone who is your average run of the mill, middle of the road suburban Democrat or Republican, and start talking to them about how if they make you register your guns, you’ll shoot the bastards who come to do it dead.

What if I say I’ll just try to wing ‘em ;-)?

PS: three is free. :-)

Well I can still run my trap as much as I like without being thrown in to a gulag, and I have an arsenal hanging on my wall. Maybe I’m wrong and the country has reached some critical mass I don’t recognize, but we have actually had some small amount of politcal success recently, working in the system. The sunset of the AWB, expanded concealed carry laws through most of the country, the protection of lawful commerce in arms act, and the Heller case.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ll be the first to tell anyone that our country was founded by radical revolutionaries. Transplant many of their statements to the present time and apply them to our current government, and anyone issuing those statements would be labeled an extremist nut job.

This quote sums up that fact nicely.

“You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.” -Charles Austin Beard

The wise dead white guys that wrote the Bill of Rights fully intended for us to have the means to resist some future tyranny from our own government with deadly force if necessary.

Interesting discussion. I don’t have a magic eight ball to say where the line is, and how we should properly convey the fact to anti gun people that the revolutionary nature of the second amendment is still intact, no matter how far out that scenario might be.

Vanderboegh on his purposes in writing ‘Absolved’:

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/07/vanderboegh-internet-introduction-to.html

A discussion from Kevin, expanded into a post:

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-is-to-be-done-question-and-answer.html

Excerpt:

…we have reached the point in this country, I believe, where the electoral power of the following societal segments:

- government workers at the local, state, and Federal level;

- “private industry” workers whose jobs are dependent on continually-expanding government spending;

- government dependents totally reliant upon the State for housing, sustenance, and other basics;

- millions of illegal aliens transmuted into “undocumented voters” to further the statists’ schemes; and

- individuals whose so-called “thinking” is so befogged by the combination of government school indoctrination and mainstream media propaganda that the concepts of freedom and private property are almost literally unthinkable

is so great as to render the existing political processes moot for anyone who believes in individual freedom and limited government.

We simply do not have the votes.

The indispensable James Bovard has more on that theme at http://jimbovard.com/blog/2008/06/30/the-capsizing-of-american-democracy/.

Kevin has noted here and elsewhere that “the courts will not save us.”

In its listing of the exceptions to the Second Amendment’s “…shall not be infringed” language, Scalia and the Heller majority have once again proven him right.

I submit that if one is dispassionate in one’s analysis of today’s political scene, the inescapable conclusion is that a voting booth is also not going to save traditional American freedom and its servants.

And the big question remains - what do the “holy electoral process” advocates plan to do when the slavering Majority of government minions has voted to:

- seize your guns and ammunition;

- confiscate the majority of your income;

- limit your access to your retirement savings;

- tax your real estate into foreclosure;

- further transform your children’s education into multi-culti State worship;

- restrict your ability to criticize and denounce the Government upon pain of imprisonment;

- abolish your ability to praise the God of your understanding as “hate speech”;

- monitor your communications with like-minded folks as “a matter of homeland security”; or

- any combination thereof?

What’s the plan then, amigos?

Folks, there has been a war being waged in this country since at least 1933 with its objective the complete subjugation of the formerly-free American people.

Believing it ain’t so due to ignorance or denial doesn’t change that fact.

The Heller majority told Congress and state legislatures exactly how to draft legislation such as
- the expanded AWB II,
- anti-ammo storage laws, and
- NFA 34’s replacement banning all civilian-possessed automatic weapons

so as to pass “Constitutional muster”.

I wonder what the excuses will be after the next Congress gets revved up under President Obamessiah.

Or will reasonable gun owners simply be placing anonymous calls to the Feds under the guise of “policing our own”?

Good luck all.

We’re gonna need it.

PS: Read this essay and give it a good think:

http://www.federalobserver.com/print.php?aid=1874

My title says nothing about starting a civil war.

I respectfully disagree. While it is not overt it is implied. And how is it different than his point? Re:

We’re done being pushed back from our natural rights without a fight.

Are they not the same?

In any case, it does not matter what law they make, the rights embodied in the BOR cannot be rescinded even by Constitutional amendment.

On another note, it might be best to point out that “machine guns” are not illegal to own when discussing the subject with the uninformed and use the opportunity to educate them even more. I would also tend to think that were the question in the poll worded honestly you would not get 77% against ownership of machine guns. Pollsters (and statisticians) can make the data say anything they want.

Depends on what kind of fight you’re talking about. I wouldn’t say I would never agree that it’s time to start resisting the government with force, but now is not the time. Now is also not the time to even suggest it.

Well, what will it take? For you.

Depends on the situation. If Pennsylvania starts banning guns, I move. If the feds do it, if someone organizes a reasonable plan to resist it, I’ll join. But that plan would have to make actually shooting people a last and final resort. There are a lot of things that can happen up until shooting starts. Like I said before, the Canadians have done pretty well with civil disobedience in defiance of the long gun registry.

“…if someone organizes a reasonable plan to resist it, I’ll join.”

Okay, so here is the next question. Who constitutes someone? Is it a Governor or Senator or someone else?

I don’t know.

“Now is also not the time to even suggest it.”

I don’t know about that. As I mentioned earlier, there are any number of people still bleating about the Militia, and letting them know there’s a Line That Shall Not Be Crossed is instructive.

Even if we don’t know or cannot agree where that line is.

And some of your arguments are a bit weak, or at least off point.
1) There won’t be people at the door demanding registration. There will be news items and perhaps letters. The knocking at the door will be done by armed men seeking violent confrontation with people (like me) who won’t comply with registration. They won’t accept a last minute conversion, they will be looking to make an example of folks. I don’t need to, nor do I expect to survive the encounter, I just need to kill one or two of them and wound a few others. That’s all any of us need to do: make sure they lose a couple of goons for every one of us they take out.
2) NRA membership has nothing to do with Mike’s 3%. The Continental Army wasn’t restricted to the Sons of Liberty or the ‘Indians’ who conducted the Boston Tea Party. When Isoroku Yamamoto informed the Japanese High Command that invading the US was impossible because there was a rifle behind every blade of grass, he wasn’t waving around the 1940/41 NRA membership roster. All it will take is a couple of perfectly normal people getting the short end of the stick, and there will be more sudden gun rights supporters than we can imagine. No matter what else has changed over the years, the basic notion of fairness is still strong.

And as I said before, keeping a low profile is what made Heller necessary, even though that is what I’d prefer. Having some Columbine-like event go down before everyone sees through President Obamarama makes a rash statement or two advisable.

I’m not suggesting that it’s directly related, but it’s a good gauge of how many people care enough about some semblance of gun rights enough to fork over 35 dollars a year. If 35 dollars is too much to ask of 76 million other gun owners, what’s going to make them join a revolution?

Okay, so here is the next question. Who constitutes someone? Is it a Governor or Senator or someone else?

Doesn’t matter too much. Depends more on their ideas and level of support. I think the most likely course is a state or part of a state secedes from the United States because it’s turned into something they don’t feel like they signed up for.

The warning on civil disobedience is supposed to be a deterrent that the gun control people better not go down that path. Gun control sympathizers do not think of the consequences of their actions and Mike’s point is just an illustration a possibility and asking do the gun control people want to risk a civil war?

Even if you’re going to concede that a warning that severe enough gun control could bring about civil war, and even conceding that it’s a wise thing to send to a newspaper, how this was approached was just bad. I’ve sparred with Mike V. on here before, and found him to be abrasive and insulting, just as he was in that letter. The only message sent there is that gun owners are a bunch of jackasses who will go off half cocked if you piss them off.

[...] in Hell wrote: Could we please (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/07/23/could-we-please/) … not make gun owners look like lunatics in the media for all to see?   You know what ends up [...]

Mike V is the one taking the risk by making himself so public. But a mild warning to those who think Heller gives them leave for registration that this could become a “public safety hazard” is not amiss. Just ask if they really want to go down that road. Maybe they will wake up to the dangers of pushing people into corners.

Don’t you think the Nine Anointed Geniuses of SCOTUS and their staffs discussed what a 5-4 decision the other way in Heller would have ignited?

No, I don’t think they did. If that was the case, apparently four justices were willing to risk it. And no, I don’t see how it’s helping, because if offers those with some sympathies to our cause to stay away from activism because they don’t want to associate with “those types of people”

Yes, even most gun owners who want to help the cause a bit are often turned off by extremist nonsense. I’ve seen it happen more than a few times.