Okay. . . If you try to take our firearms we will kill you. ...Bravado? Probably. Fringe extremism? Almost certainly. But can this sort of violent sentiment be harnessed by the right sort of leadership? Almost certainly.
Our God-given, natural and inalienable rights are not subject to modification by law or negotiation. ... 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.
I have conflicted feelings about this guy. I'm a philosopher: we don't (with the possible exception of George Orwell) tend to find ourselves on the front line of any cause, and none of us, not even Orwell, have the kind of fanatical intensity that Vanderboegh displays. On the other hand you don't have any kind of revolution — good or bad — without stirring up comparable feelings and passions. Yes, it's all well and good to sit in one's ivory tower and wring one's hands about irrational passions. (Vanderboegh is apparently willing to die to protect his right to... what? His right to die to protect his rights?) But to renounce these violent passions is to fully support the status quo.
It's hard to control these passions once aroused, without repression as egregious and objectionable as what the revolution was started to cure. Should we simply, contra Ben Franklin's lament, "despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest"?