Mike Vanderboegh has another piece up at War on Guns: Fear. Since by my reading of his piece it is clear that he has a specific disagreement with my opinion on the issue, so I guess I need to respond. I dislike being called a coward.

Mr. Vanderboegh has pointed to some great moments in US history where the people of this nation rose up against a government that they felt was unjust. He points to his friends and neighbors that are good men of proud lineage, that in their humble, plain speaking way are ready to muster against tyranny and do violence to their oppressors.

My main disagreement with Mr. Vanderboegh is that while it is fine to inspire with history, he has no plan of action. An impassioned sermon to choir should not be confused with action. I would like to think that Mr. Vanderboegh and I agree on the goals and ideals, but not on the implementation or plan of action.

The founding fathers laid out a pretty good roadmap for the country, but it wasn't perfect. The lefties will argue that communism works if you get the right people, and much the same can be said of democracy. If the people continue to elect the pocket-liners and power-grabbers then democracy will fail because we didn't get the right people.

Popular uprisings are as much about majority opinion as they are the blood, toil, and tears. My point is that if a majority Americans can again value liberty as Mr. Vanderboegh does then there wouldn't need to be a physical battle. If no politician could survive (politically) voting against the freedoms of his constituents then no politician would consider doing so. I do not believe that small acts of armed resistance will turn the opinions of the people against the governments excesses.

Look at the popular opinion in regard to the protesters and activists of the far-left. The violent actions of "a few anarchists" have permitted the government to take even more draconian measures, and even the mainstream liberals want to disassociate themselves from those protesting with spray paint, fire, and broken glass.

I have been called a coward and a defeatist for suggesting something other than asymmetrical warfare against the government. I simply choose to stand behind the tactics and means that I believe have the greatest chance for success, even if that makes me a "pissant yankee wuss."

Mr. Vanderboegh points to the graves of the southern heros that dot the world, but makes no mention of the immigrant buried on his left or the yankee on his right. Is the 442nd RCT somehow less noble or heroic? They volunteered to fight FOR the republic while their families were imprisoned by it, and managed to save some "rednecks" along the way.

I used the term Keyboard Commando in my last post and that has been misunderstood to mean some sort of electronic rebellion. Far from it. A keyboard commando is someone who types a good fight. It is a few simple keystrokes to claim an ideological lineage to the heros of the past all the way back to the Spartans, but it is another thing to earn it. Stern words to an ATF agent in the defense of sympathetic judge is hardly the Hot Gates.

Mr. Vanderboegh, I would point out that history tends to remember failed revolutionaries as traitors, terrorists, or not at all. I admire your goals, but find your suggested methods ridiculous. It doesn't make me a defeatist because I refuse your flavor of kool-aid. I find your personal attacks petty, irrelevant, and beneath both of us.

(Edited to clean up a couple of typos)