>Vanderboegh: Brady Bunch’s Paul Helmke Unclutters the Battlefield

Brady Bunch’s Paul Helmke Unclutters the Battlefield,

– or –

Through the Looking Glass of the Gun Grabbers’ Liberal Language to the Bloody Red Queen on the Other Side

It has always astounded me that collectivists of all stripes (communists, Nazis, socialists, liberals, progressives and present day gun prohibitionists) have had such success in winning arguments by redefining the terms before they begin. Take the latest crowing by Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign (formerly too-truthfully named Handgun Control) over the results of the 2008 election, “We Win, They Lose, Now Let’s Get to Work”.

“The elections two weeks ago reflected significant advances for the cause of gun violence prevention.”


“Gun violence prevention.”

The problem is not criminals who are using guns to facilitate their crimes, but those pesky violent guns themselves. It is not the context in which the tool is used, but the tool itself. However, if you read the details of what Helmke and his ilk have proposed over the years, “gun violence prevention” is in fact citizen disarmament.

I would like to take Helmke’s second sentence and deconstruct it as we go:

“Meanwhile, with stories of fear-driven gun sales. . .” (Read: law-abiding people voting with their wallets. . .)

“Emerging since the election, the shallowness. . .” (Read: Only we understand the received “truth.”)

“Of the gun lobby’s. . .” (Read: These law-abiding people are not human but an inanimate object.)

“Divisive . . .”
(Read: Because they don’t agree with their own disarmament.)

“Approach to America’s problems. . .”
(Read: If they would only consent to disarmament, ALL our nation’s problems would be solved.)

“Has never been more apparent.”

Now, put it all together.

“The elections two weeks ago reflected significant advances for the cause of gun violence prevention. Meanwhile, with stories of fear-driven gun sales emerging since the election, the shallowness of the gun lobby’s approach to America’s problems has never been more apparent.”

Well, if you haven’t been studying the gun control advocates’ true position on this issue and lack, as do almost all the products of public education in this country, a firm grounding in the Founder’s intent of the Second Amendment, this sounds perfectly reasonable. Heck, if I didn’t understand the lie over which this veneer of redefined terms was glued, I might call Helmke’s “reasonable regulations,” well, reasonable.

Note that here again it is the language they couch their position in that serves them so well:

“Reasonable regulations.”

It is as if anyone who disagrees with them, who refuses to compromise with them, is, by definition, “unreasonable.” The funny thing is, they haven’t seen “unreasonable” yet. But more of that in a minute.

Another way they state “reasonable regulations” is “common sense gun laws.” Again, anyone who disagrees with Helmke and his minions is, by definition, lacking in “common sense.”

The term with which the nimble liars of the citizen disarmament crowd have achieved their greatest success, however, is “assault weapon.” Originally, an “assault rifle” was a fully-automatic military rifle of intermediate caliber, between that of a pistol and a battle rifle, such as the Sturmgehwer 1944 or the Kalashnikov AK-47. Automatic weapons of course have been tightly regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

They could not accurately describe the types of weapons they wished to ban as “semi-automatic rifles of military appearance” so they came up with “assault rifles,” and later “assault weapons,” to further enlarge the class of firearms they wished to ban. Today, they even refer to “assault pistols” and “assault shotguns.” Note that by the very term, they preclude the concept of these firearms being put to defensive use by law-abiding citizens against a violent criminal or a predatory government. In their Alice in Wonderland universe, the term becomes the reality. And the weak-minded fools who pass for American citizens these days, sagely nod their heads in sheep-like trance.

The worst of Helmke’s Through the Looking Glass concepts, however, is “closing the gunshow loophole.” Now, a cursory glance at this “reasonable regulation” by someone whose understanding of language has not yet been corrupted by Orwellian doublespeak shows that this, of all Helmke and Co.’s demands, is the most tyrannical, the most breathtaking.

Recall that all of their previous attempts at restricting our firearms freedoms have been based on the wobbly pivot point of the “interstate commerce” clause. That is, that the sale of firearms by dealers affects interstate commerce. The Founders would have found this outrageous. But with this latest proposal, the gun grabbers seek to control the sales of ALL private individuals, including those who sell even one gun within his own state of residence, even, in some writings of this “common sense proposal,” the transference of your granddaddy’s shotgun to your son.


And the Founders shot at his troops for much less than this.

“They’ve got us surrounded . . . the poor bastards.”

Which brings me to my final point.

The remainder of Helmke’s article is a recitation of the political successes of the gun grabbers in the past election and especially of the ineffectiveness of the National Rifle Association and the “Grand Old Party” in the political arena. (I refuse to call them “Republicans,” which is a profanation of the term.) It is also a call to arms to his collectivist buddies to finish the gun control agenda. In this Helmke is right, he and his kind have us politically surrounded. But we are not mesmerized by the illusionist language of professional liars. We know that on the other side of Helmke’s “Alice in Wonderland” looking glass awaits the bloody Red Queen.

To quote the anonymous paratrooper of the 101st Airborne Division at Bastogne in 1944, “They’ve got us surrounded . . . the poor bastards.”

For when democracy becomes tyranny, those of us with rifles still get to vote.

By Helmke’s definition, I am one of the “unreasonable” ones, lacking in “common sense.” There are many, many more like me. We call ourselves, proudly, the Three Percent, after the fraction of the population of the American colonies who took up arms against the British.

I have news for Helmke and his ilk. Celebrate, if you wish, the sweeping away of what you think is our “political protection.” Go ahead and crow at having isolated us beyond any power to construct a political defense to your designs on our property and liberty.

You think the GOP protected US?

My poor, deluded gun grabbers — they protected you FROM us.

Fools like Helmke think that if they pass a law we will have to obey it, no matter that it strikes at our God-given inalienable rights, which are not protected by the Constitution, but merely delineated therein. The Helmkes of the country believe that winning an election, merely outnumbering us, can change our minds, can intimidate us, can force us to submit.

Helmke, you stupid schmuck, we will not submit.

We will NEVER submit.

We, the Three Percent, will not back up any more, no matter how many “laws” you contrive to pass. By defeating the GOP utterly, by demonstrating once and for all what political eunuchs the NRA actually are (something of which we already had no doubt), by uncluttering the political battlefield, indeed, by removing politics as a consideration whatsoever and making the question simply one of force not law, you have simplified our problem.

When the tyrant’s servants come to our door at your behest, we will now know not only just when, but who, to shoot in self defense.

Thank you in advance, Mr. Helmke, for doing us this service.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126


PS: If you agree with this, pass it on far and wide.

6 responses to “>Vanderboegh: Brady Bunch’s Paul Helmke Unclutters the Battlefield

  1. >Right on the money. III.

  2. >I am often shocked and amazed at the amount of emotion that a little black rifle can elicit. While my 30-30 of steel and walnut is *almost* familiar to some, my AR-15 is actually scary to most. I have found that big black scoped “sniper” rifles are also very intimidating to people. Why?My theory is that EVERY rifle with black plastic or fiberglass is an assault rifle to the average Joe and Susy Citizen. Why? Because they are used to seeing government assault forces (military and militarized police) assaulting citizens, assaulting in foreign territories, etc.People can handle that when it is on the news but they have a hard time dealing with it up close. Just seeing a military patterned rifle scares the be-jeezus out of many people. I know… I take sport in it when I bring trusted friends to the range to demystify these things.Now… as for the ANTI-gun lobby, the Brady Bunch, et tal… that is a different story. They simply have an agenda. Unfortunately far too many people are willing to go along with it. That is why I propose a new holiday… “Bring a Liberal to the Range” day. 🙂 Convert them one by one if you can.

  3. >Why do the Helmkes of America fear ‘assult rifles’ or any scoped high powered rifle for that matter? Because, they know what the founding fathers of the Second Ammendment intended them to be used for. They intended them to be used on the Helmkes and the other Red Queens henchmen of this Country. This is one III who is tired of waiting. Let’s get this party started… Chicago Rules

  4. >Isn’t it interesting how the pro-gunners usually seem to more numerous (and more intelligent-sounding) than the antis on an ANTI-GUN blog?

  5. >Some liberals are beyond redemption.A very liberal co-worker sat down with me this morning before going off shift at the firehouse. It was the usual hour before roll call and we had the TV on. We were watching this week’s edition of American Rifleman.They were covering a three-gun match. On the screen flashed the image of competitors engaging targets with a M249 SAW (only ten rounds … provided by FNH) and then distant/mid-range silhouette targets with their own rifles. Some of the targets were in the open as well as inside junk cars. Some targets required head shots.Friend (jumping up, almost in a shriek, pointing and with a “gotcha” look on his face): “SEE!! That has nothing to do with hunting!”Me: “hmm .. exactly … your point?”Friend (confused): “Huh?” (dismissing me and repeating himself) “See! That doesn’t look like hunting to me.”Me (repeating myself): “Exactly … your point is?”Friend: “They’re taking head shots at HUMAN silhouettes!!”(pause)Friend: “Don’t ever try to tell me that the Second Amendment is about hunting!”Me: “Why, John (name changed to protect the ignorant)! I never thought you would come around to our way of thinking! … Congratulations!”Friend: “You gun nuts are all **** up!”Me: “What’s the matter? Do free men scare you?”Friend (not catching or ignoring the free men reference): “Yeah … you guys scare the [heck] out of me!”Me: “Good. We intend to keep it that way.”

  6. >Go Wild Deuce!Excellent post. I stand with all of you. They come knockin’ I start shootin’!MOLON LABE!God Bless America!!!!