No products in the cart.


Armed Chattanooga Marine First Raised on Vanderboegh Blog

ScreenHunter_01 Jul. 22 08.40
Stewart Rhodes introduces Mike Vanderboegh at the Liberty Oath Keeper’s meeting in Monticello NY, April 21, 2013. Click photo to open link to video.

“The FBI has recovered a pistol that may have been privately owned and used by one of the Marines killed here Thursday during the shooting at the Navy Operational Support Center, according to law enforcement officials,” The Washington Post reported Monday. ‘Investigators are trying to determine, based on forensics, whether the pistol, a 9mm Glock, was used in an exchange with the shooter, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, and possibly wounded him, officials said.”

That’s been corroborated and elaborated on by a Tuesday Navy Times report claiming “Sources: Navy officer, Marine fought to take out Chattanooga gunman.

“It’s also unclear why they were armed, as it is against Defense Department policy for anyone other than military police or law enforcement to carry weapons on federal property,” that report points out.

These revelations bolster a claim made by an anonymous poster on the Sipsey Street Irregulars blog last Friday. That site is run by Mike Vanderboegh, widely recognized as the founder of the Three Percent movement and the blogger who first reported evidence of Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking” in the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

“One Marine was armed, in violation of policy, and fired at the cowardly bastard who then retreated behind the facility,” an individual identifying himself only as “anon for obvious reasons” wrote. “There he began firing on the others.

“Get the facts,” the comment poster advised. “I spoke w/ a friend who was guarding the suspect’s home this morning. (Sgt w/ Chat. City PD).”

“I would like to investigate your claim and see if it can be verified,” I responded in comments, not having any other way to investigate. “Mike and I will guarantee your anonymity and go to jail before revealing you as our source, just, as we proved faithful to the Fast and Furious whistleblowers. If you could contact him or me, I’d appreciate the opportunity to find out more.”

No reply has been forthcoming at this writing, but the WaPo and Navy Times stories offer substantial corroboration.

This is yet another example of the potential for alternative media to beat the big boys to the punch despite a vast disparity in connections and resources. That in turn reflects on the quality of readership truly informative blogs attract, particularly ones with a track record of breaking important news ahead of the corporate outlets. True, that didn’t happen this time, but things might have played out differently had the anonymous poster responded.

These revelations will probably result in no shortage of antis reveling in ghoulish triumph over a defensive gun failure, and using that to further attack the right to keep and bear arms. Just keep in mind that no one has ever claimed the presence of a gun will allow the victims to prevail in all situations, and anyone using this to defend “gun free zones” is simply being an opportunistic, agenda über alles liar.

Also see: Chattanooga Shootings Show We’re Up to Our Necks in It



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.



  1. My view is it is a violation of the 2nd Amendment to even have a policy of “no weapons.” We would not be having this conversation had the anti-gunners never got away with such policies both in the private sector and public/governmental.


  2. Whether the miscreant was hit with rounds form the Glock or not it drove him away and limited his options to kill marines.

  3. Here we go again on who shot that round! Enough to say. it hit its mark and may have save lives.

  4. I find it disconcerting that armed uniformed DHS officers are assigned as security for government employees of Social Security offices when documented threats have been made against personnel assigned to recruiting centers and military bases, and the weapons qualified people who work there are not allowed the means of self defense. “Take off your uniform and run.” Marines do not do that. Col. Cooper made the observation that – “Evil cannot be defeated by running from it,”

  5. Marines are arguably the best shots in the world . From day one that is drummed into them . They are taught to hit what they aim at regardless of weather they use a rifle or pistol . I wouldn’t want to be on the business end of a 9mm Glock with a Marine pulling the trigger at the other end .

    1. Charles, as a Army “Expert” marksman, I was never instructed to miss a target. The Marines are not the only good marksmen in the U.S. Military. We ALL were joined at the hip when we took the oath.

  6. “…against Defense Department policy”?

    I thought it was a Federal Crime. A misdemeanor, anyways.

    18 U.S. Code § 930 – Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

  7. Upon taking the military oath, does a citizen soldier forfeit his/her Constitutional rights under the USCMJ?

  8. The Slain Marine went down with a fight as ALL free Citizens should strive to do….Semper Fi

  9. The Second Amendment, as it stands, is a ban on any restrictions of the PEOPLE, not the states, not the militia, but the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

    No more funds for the Secret Service UNTIL the Federal Government starts obeying the Second Amendment of the constitution.

    If the Anti-Gunners want to ban guns in anyway or even to put restrictions or license requirements then you have to do it by the only way the Framers allowed,
    a constitutional change either by re-writing the constitution or adding another amending article.

    1. glenux- the 2A cannot be repealed. There is a reason the first 10 Amendments is called the Bill of Rights; that’s because they are UNALIENABLE, meaning they can NEVER be taken away by ANYONE, any group, any government, period. The founders believed that any infringement on ANY of the 10 amendments meant tyranny had arrived.

      I am saddened that you have bought the false argument that unalienable rights can be infringed upon, but you’re not alone, unfortunately. I do hope that you, and others like you, seek the proper understanding of liberty as fought for by the founders. Please take some time and go to and for an accurate historical perspective.

      1. Dana: Your comments are spot on. God given unalienable rights can’t be taken from us.
        Genesis 2:16

        And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;

  10. ” . . . antis reveling in ghoulish triumph over a defensive gun failure . . .”
    And they NEVER admit that online and in-print gun magazine publishers (i.e. NRA) monthly post many stories of legally armed folks successfully defending themselves and others.

    Maybe the DoD should review its policy regarding, at the very least, its OWN employees being allowed to legally (and rightfully) defend themselves while on government owned property. After all, these are folks they have deemed mentally fit to go to war under the worst of psychologically stressful conditions, so why wouldn’t they be trusted to handle themselves as trained? (military shrinks of certain religious persuasions don’t count)

Comments are closed.