The Ultimate Conundrum


PDA






Curare
June 28, 2005, 11:04 AM
Second Amendment Rights are in place to prevent tyranny.

The government is gradually taking 2A rights away, with each step reducing our ability to fight tyranny.

Yet with each passing gun law and restriction, we do not use firearms to protect our rights.

In other words we are not using the tool the Second Amendement purposely offers us in order to preserve the Second Amendment and other freedoms.

It's going to be difficult to stop a tyrannical entity if we have to go down to the neighborhood "gun club", break in to obtain our non semi-auto target rifles and take a box or two of serial numbered ammunition to attack our oppressors.

It would be much more obvious to many citizens if the right were suddenly stolen, rather than embezzled over generations.

Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressor?

If you enjoyed reading about "The Ultimate Conundrum" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The Rabbi
June 28, 2005, 11:15 AM
Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressor?

Umm, it's illegal. I wouldnt be doing anybody any good by being dead or in jail.

EghtySx
June 28, 2005, 11:27 AM
It's illegal? I think that was his point. We are headed to where what you do now is illegal and it is getting harder and harder to stop them from chipping away at what we have left.

...


I am kinda with The Rabbi here but Curare is right. We should have put an end to this erosion long ago by any means necessary.

Give me liberty or give me death

I don't think we have too many people like Patrick Henry around today. At least haven't met anyone who values liberty above their own life or it seems even above their freedom. Now, Comfort? Oh, we value comfort don't we.

BeLikeTrey
June 28, 2005, 11:34 AM
1st 2nd 5th and 14th are taking successive hits. these rights enumerated in the BOR are gradually being taken away. the hope is that by gradually doing this, those like you who want to stop it by force are few because a common populace boiling point hasn't been reached. I agree with you, but as of yet am uncertain what course would be more prudent to effect change. The property rights hit was a bad mistake before the complete abolition of the second amendment though... I think either it is a misstep or they are counting on the populace being soft. We'll see how things pan out with the folks up around Keldo's area.

Werewolf
June 28, 2005, 12:00 PM
All this talk of resistance using the 2A is nonsense. How pray tell would one go about resisting without the end result being anything other than jail or death for the resistors.

In 1775 1/3 of the folks were pro-revolt, 1/3 pro-British and 1/3 just wanted to be left alone to live their lives. Communications took days, the revolutionaries mostly owned the press, they were armed pretty much like their adversaries and they were fighting on their home ground.

Wake UP! THIS ISN'T 1775. :banghead: The government is here(!) not 3000 miles away on another continent across an ocean. There's no way the socialist press would back any revolutionary movement to replace the current government peacefully or otherwise and without the press there is no way IMO any resistance could be successful.

It's totally reasonable that guys with guns and other combat expertise could make life miserable for the pols and even the government but they couldn't overthrow it - at least I can't imagine how they'd do it. I suppose a resistance could destroy the governmen (think NUKE in DC set off on the day the State of the Union address is given) but all that would result in would be the break up of the country into smaller nations made up of various states at best and the take over of the US by a foreign power at worst (maybe the Canadians would grow a set).

Then there's that pesky hearts and minds of the people problem. The US population is too much into a collective, good of the group over good of the individual mindset to ever fight for the freedoms that the guys in 1775 were fighting for. As long as they got their beer, TV and a place to drink it and watch it the masses will be happy. So - even if 1/3 of the people (and that's a huge, gigantic stretch) decide to fight they're gonna piss off the other 2/3 enough that just walkin' down the street will be dangerous. All that would be accomplished is that the 1/3 who just want to be left alone would get annoyed enough to join the 1/3 that are pro-government.

So where does that leave a potential resistance? Up feces river without a paddle that's where.

I imagine that within the next 50 or so years there will crop up a violent resistance to the government. It'll kill a lot of folks and destroy a lot of property and the only result will be that the government will crack down to a point where the old Soviet Union will look like Freedom's Paradise in comparison.

Gloomy prediction - I know - but the time has long past when the population of the US could successfully toss the bums out and restore true freedom in our country. I imagine the souls of the likes of Thomas Payne, Nathan Hale, Sam Adams, John Hancock, George Washington and the greatest of them all - Thomas Jefferson are all looking down on our nation, shaking their heads in contempt and wondering how what they created went so very, very wrong.

ASIDE: The only hope of regaining our liberty is in a secession movement but that is so remote that it isn't even worth considering.

Curare
June 28, 2005, 12:10 PM
Before someone asks me "Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressor," it's probably because I don't want to be dead or in prison--just like Rabbi suggests.

rock jock
June 28, 2005, 12:29 PM
The government is gradually taking 2A rights away
That depends on your perspective. Thirty years ago few states had anything resembling shall-issue CCW. Now, the majority of states do. Thirty years ago forearm-owners were at the mercy of individual state LE if traveling across country with a gun. Now we have the FOPA (yes, I know it included the MG ban). The AWB is gone. Al Gore very likely lost the '00 election based on the gun vote.

Point is, the fight for RKBA has not been entirely a losing battle. We gain ground on some issues and lose some on others. Welcome to representative govt.

Justin
June 28, 2005, 12:34 PM
Before someone asks me "Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressor," it's probably because I don't want to be dead or in prison--just like Rabbi suggests.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=21329&stc=1

So you want someone else to go out and take all the risk for you?

Risasi
June 28, 2005, 12:34 PM
Dudes, they can't take away your rights. All they can do is SUPPRESS them. It's your job to guarantee your rights.

The recognizance of your rights hardly grants anything.

Werewolf, you are funny.


But you hit upon a key point. The most important thing is communication. The information age is upon us.

[EDIT]
Also I might add, the way the liberal agenda is winning is sneaky and underhanded. Since their agenda cannot argue against logic and common sense they have a two pronged form of attack. 1. The constant barrage of propaganda, in all forms of media. 2. The indoctrination of your kids in the government school system. Face it, it's very likely many of your kids in this next generation will be opposed to the BoR.

2nd Amendment
June 28, 2005, 12:38 PM
:rolleyes: Ahh yes, if you need a dose of daily negativity just come to this thread.

IT"S ILLEGAL!

IT CAN"T BE DONE!

I might go to jail!

I might get shot!

Yeah, and your kids will live with a totalitarian dictatorship.

You choose.

The Rabbi
June 28, 2005, 12:42 PM
I'll echo RockJock here. In some areas gun rights are much better than they were for most of the lives of the people on this board. We have no Federal waiting period and no Federal ID for ammo purchase. You can still purchase ammo on-line and have it shipped. The CCW phenomenon has already been mentioned. But most of all gun owners and the orgs that defend them are being seen as serious adversaries, not a bunch of right wing kooks. Pols are actually scared of gun owners, not getting shot by them but getting defeated in elections by them. This is a good thing. We need more of it.

Yeah, and your kids will live with a totalitarian dictatorship.
So get out there and start wasting those rascals, son! We'll send you all the ammo you need. :banghead:

walking arsenal
June 28, 2005, 12:54 PM
So what your all saying is that there is no hope, we're all screwed.

OR

We're not all screwed but to change things we need to get together and vote?

corupted gov, i dont see the vote thing happening, we are the minority and the minority (unless your gay, hispanic, feamale, homeless, or black) does not rule here.

Resistance? right, not unless we want to bring down the thors hammer that is our military on our heads. Plus we would be labeled (if we havent been already) terrorists.


Screwed screwed screwed.


We need more people, we need more minds, free the minds, get involved in everything. lets take back the country.

longeyes
June 28, 2005, 01:07 PM
Not to worry: Libertarian extra-terrestrials are coming to emancipate us.

fjolnirsson
June 28, 2005, 01:41 PM
As long as they got their beer, TV and a place to drink it

The recent eminent domain ruling means they may not have a place to drink beer and watch tv. The ruling affects everyone, even renters. When Joe Sixpack gets a notice to be out in 24 hours,(because his landlord has lost the property) he's gonna get real uncomfortable, real fast. Especially if he misses Monday night football.
As for citizens not being able to mount effective resistance against modern weapons(which I'm sure will be brought up soon), There are places in this country where popular sentiment will not be with the government. For an idea of what that could be like, look at what's going on in Iraq right now. Look at what happened in to our Rangers and Delta Force guys in Somalia. I guarantee you, there are folks in America with RPGs and more. And they won't all be fighting our special forces guys. Hel, some of them will be special forces. It'll be ugly, it'll be nasty, and the video will be rolling.
Will it happen? Maybe not. It depends on whether or not people are mad enough, in large enough numbers, to fight the government. Myself, I'm not looking forward to a bloody revolution.
YMMV

Bubbles
June 28, 2005, 02:01 PM
Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressor?

Because I'm still fighting them using the soap box and ballot box.

Further, if or when I decide those tools will no longer work, there's no way I'd be stupid enough to say anything about my activities on an Internet message board.

Werewolf
June 28, 2005, 04:29 PM
It depends on whether or not people are mad enough, in large enough numbers, to fight the government.And there in lies the rub...

I'm pessimistic in that I truly do not believe that people will get either mad enough or mad enough in sufficient numbers to fight the government.As for citizens not being able to mount effective resistance against modern weaponsActually I never said they couldn't. If an active resistance ever developed in the USA (doubtful on any significant scale though IMO it will happen) I for one wouldn't want to be a soldier or policeman, a politician or councilman, a rep or a senator or any other representative of local, county, state or the US government.

That said the immense size of our country and the nature of our government would make it so that any traditional resistance could never hope to be anymore than a severe annoyance. The only way for a resistance movement to change our government would be to destroy it because once the resistance goes active the government will clamp down, elections will be put on hold, the police will be given powers that the worst JBT in their midsts today can only dream of and the military will be patrolling the highways and byways of our nation. When that happens it won't matter whether Joe Sixpack gets mad or not.When Joe Sixpack gets a notice to be out in 24 hours,(because his landlord has lost the property) he's gonna get real uncomfortable, real fast.Yep - he will. But all the other Joe Sixpacks out there won't give a tinker's damn never imagining that one day it could be his turn. ED works against just one at a time and occasionaly many but never enough to actually tick off a big enough crowd to matter in the long run. Joe Sixpack and all his brothers have real short memories - he'll get moved and just drink his beer and watch his TV at his new house.

thereisnospoon
June 28, 2005, 04:56 PM
Wow,

What a thread.

I have to admitt that I have never been as angry as I am right this moment as I read this board. :cuss: Are we already that subdued? :cuss: :cuss:

From the looks of this thread, we should give up ours guns now and vote Hillary in, to boot... :banghead:

WHEN the time comes for that type of resistance, and it will- I hope each man, woman and other (alien/mutant, whatever) who reads and posts this board wil look at the situation and decide that freedom far outweighs the risk and that even though things may be futile, they will press on knowing that there sacrafice will be worth it. Even if we lose, meaning death, I believe that each sacrafice will be worth it somehow.

Let me see if I can make a point from history.

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
Many Jews in ghettos across eastern Europe tried to organize resistance against the Germans and to arm themselves with smuggled and homemade weapons. Between 1941 and 1943, underground resistance movements formed in about 100 Jewish groups. The most famous attempt by Jews to resist the Germans in armed fighting occurred in the Warsaw ghetto.

In the summer of 1942, about 300,000 Jews were deported from Warsaw to Treblinka. When reports of mass murder in the killing center leaked back to the Warsaw ghetto, a surviving group of mostly young people formed an organization called the Z.O.B. (for the Polish name, Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa, which means Jewish Fighting Organization). The Z.O.B., led by 23-year-old Mordecai Anielewicz, issued a proclamation calling for the Jewish people to resist going to the railroad cars. In January 1943, Warsaw ghetto fighters fired upon German troops as they tried to round up another group of ghetto inhabitants for deportation. Fighters used a small supply of weapons that had been smuggled into the ghetto. After a few days, the troops retreated. This small victory inspired the ghetto fighters to prepare for future resistance.

On April 19, 1943, the Warsaw ghetto uprising began after German troops and police entered the ghetto to deport its surviving inhabitants. Seven hundred and fifty fighters fought the heavily armed and well-trained Germans. The ghetto fighters were able to hold out for nearly a month, but on May 16, 1943, the revolt ended. The Germans had slowly crushed the resistance. Of the more than 56,000 Jews captured, about 7,000 were shot, and the remainder were deported to killing centers or concentration camps.


Now, many will say, "there ya go, they all died for nothing", but I would submitt that they died fighting for their race, religion, family, lover or whatever motivated them to pick up arms.

Were they out numbered? Yes
Were they out gunned? Yes
Did they do it anyway? Yes

Why? Because it was the right thing to do...

Now our circumstnce is a little different, but not really. These people were about to lose their lives and they knew it. By this time, word was spreading about the killing of Jews, so they were fighting for their lives.

We are only fighting for our way of life, but I submitt that if we don't do it soon, our way of life will be gone, Freedom will exist only in ancient, outlawed history books and firearms will only be a memory.

cuchulainn
June 28, 2005, 05:16 PM
A failed armed rebellion would permanently destroy the RKBA in the USA. The likelihood that an armed rebellion would succeed in the USA is almost nil.

If you're going to seriously consider the "bullet box option," you'd better be prepared to accept the responsibility that it's a sure bet that you'll fail, destroy the RKBA and make things much worse for your kids.

It has nothing to do with being subdued, cowardly or defeatist. It's about recognizing reality rather than indulging in adolescent fantasies. While the children strut around bragging about what they'll do someday, the grownups will work towards the types of gains that Rockjock mentioned.

The reason that the revolution will not be televised is because it won't occur. Deal with it. Move on. Do something useful.

Anyway, none of you faux-revolutionaries are really serious. I know you think that you are, but you aren't. You're just hot air. All of you.

thereisnospoon
June 28, 2005, 07:36 PM
You wrote:

A failed armed rebellion would permanently destroy the RKBA in the USA. The likelihood that an armed rebellion would succeed in the USA is almost nil.

If you're going to seriously consider the "bullet box option," you'd better be prepared to accept the responsibility that it's a sure bet that you'll fail, destroy the RKBA and make things much worse for your kids.

It has nothing to do with being subdued, cowardly or defeatist. It's about recognizing reality rather than indulging in adolescent fantasies. While the children strut around bragging about what they'll do someday, the grownups will work towards the types of gains that Rockjock mentioned.

The reason that the revolution will not be televised is because it won't occur. Deal with it. Move on. Do something useful.
Anyway, none of you faux-revolutionaries are really serious. I know you think that you are, but you aren't. You're just hot air. All of you.

I say:

Thank you for pretending to know what I'll do (or anyone else for that matter) when the time comes. I'm sure you knew what was in Todd Beamer's mind before he took charge and helped crash that plane into a Penn. field, but I guess that is just another immature fairytale...puhlease....People do extraordinary things in extraordinary times...

People like you scare me...worse than an enemy I can identify, you pretend to be an ally when truely you are an apologist for those who would trample Rour Bill of rights and our Constitution. :barf:

And in case you missed it, I said WHEN the time comes-and it will...until then I will continue to fight the good fight through the ballet box and the soap box.

You my friend scare me.

Standing Wolf
June 28, 2005, 07:43 PM
Were they out numbered? Yes
Were they out gunned? Yes
Did they do it anyway? Yes

Why? Because it was the right thing to do...

Oh, but it couldn't happen here... could it?

cuchulainn
June 28, 2005, 08:27 PM
Thank you for pretending to know what I'll do (or anyone else for that matter) when the time comes. I'm sure you knew what was in Todd Beamer's mind before he took charge and helped crash that plane into a Penn. Yes, I understand that you believe to the core of your earnest, thumpity-thump little heart that you'll do something "when." You won't.

But it doesn't matter. There will be no revolution. That's a fact. Deal with it.


you pretend to be an ally when truely you are an apologist for those who would trample Rour Bill of rights and our Constitution.I haven't acted as an apologist for anyone. I've simply pointed out the realities of the battlefield. You can fantasize about the battle you want to fight, or you can fight the battle you need to fight.

The Rabbi
June 28, 2005, 08:32 PM
Face it Cuchulain, you've been outed. We all know now you're really..

HILLARY CLINTON!

cuchulainn
June 28, 2005, 08:41 PM
Are my canned-ham ankles that obvious?

walking arsenal
June 28, 2005, 10:10 PM
It's the skirt, it's not you.

Solo
June 28, 2005, 10:15 PM
Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressor?
Because democracy has not collapsed yet?

cuchulainn
June 28, 2005, 10:27 PM
Bill wears the skirts, not me.

Khaotic
June 28, 2005, 10:28 PM
If it comes to it, it does not greatly concern me whether gun possession would be legal or illegal at the time when it comes to a SHTF scenario such as this.

Exactly what difference would it make to worry about breaking firearms regulations when you're in a firefight with the people who wrote them ? :scrutiny:

Besides which, THEY would have guns, and in short order, they wouldn't and those still standing of 'us', would.

Duh.

That bein said - as history no doubt shows, you cannot free any people by force, they have to want it badly enough to take it for themselves, or they'll not keep it for any real length of time.

And if they don't want it that badly, they'll despise you for stirring things up, act against you, not support you, etc etc.

I highly suggest some of you read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. Van Vogt - it goes into this whole topic in a pretty effective way.

-K

Chris Rhines
June 28, 2005, 10:51 PM
Because we can't win. Not now, not ever. I'm not much for throwing my life away on lost causes, and liberty in the United States is a lost cause. Nobody is interested.

- Chris

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 12:00 AM
Cuchulain,

I believe we have crossed swords on this subject before, as referenced by the thread you have listed in your signature. Obviously you believe you know me and those like me who believe we will "act" when the time comes. You know we will "do nothng". Are there any stocks or investments you would recommend?, because obviously you are clarvoyent or something.

I have no idea if there will ever be a "revolution". I reallt don't anticipate an armed revolution where "Freedom Fighters" line up shoulder to shoulder and face the US army/Navy/Air Force/Marines in an out and out battle. That would be a poor, quick and decisive vistory for the "Oppressors". I believe that when action begins it will be like the insurgency in Iraq, mainly harrasing and annoying, but it appears to be effective enough that our President felt he must address the Us about it tonight on National T.V.

People will be labeled as extremists and "right-wing-nuts", but the fact is, if the insurgency is done properly, it can be effective, as it is in the middle east. The IRA brought England to its knees and the bargaining table and the Afghan guerillas kept the Soviets at bay for 10 years...again just some History.

I find it ingteresting that you COULD NOT address the ides of someone doing something extraordinary when time call for it, examples such as those brave souls in the Warsaw Ghetto or Todd Beamer and the exceptionally brave NYPD and NYFD people who continued to go into the World Trade Center even though they knew there was a very high risk factor, and many died trying to save others, even though it was obviously futile, they couldn't save everyone.

And BTW, in your original post you said a failed armed revolution would 1) surely fail-a fact with which I completely agree with you and 2) destroy the RKBA in the USA...wouldn't this be the reason we were "acting" in the first place?????? Just wondering. And, if we dumb fantasy-laden idiots annoy you so much, why do you read/post in these threads instead of avoiding them? Are you trying to save us from ourselves?

Finally, you said You can fantasize about the battle you want to fight, or you can fight the battle you need to fight. Are they mutually exclusive?? Can you not work as hard as possible using the soap box and the ballet box, while still considering the bullet box?

DO you purport that Patrick Henry should have remained silent? (and no I do not think I am Patrick Henry...it is just a question)

(BTW, denial is a beautiful thing isn't it? I mean why consider something when you can deny it and poke fun at those who care to face the thought of "what if")

I really look forward to your replies and other responses, because I enjoy discussing things such as this and I hope you know I try very hard to make sure my comments are not offensive. Reading my original post I sounded snide and snippy, didn't mean to...

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 09:52 AM
And, if we dumb fantasy-laden idiots annoy you so much, why do you read/post in these threads instead of avoiding them? Are you trying to save us from ourselves? I harbor no delusions about shaking you from your fantasies. As I said, I'm aware that you believe to the core of your little heart that you'd rise up "when."


And BTW, in your original post you said a failed armed revolution would 1) surely fail-a fact with which I completely agree with you and 2) destroy the RKBA in the USA...wouldn't this be the reason we were "acting" in the first place?????? Just wondering. What I said was that A) a failed revolution would destroy the RKBA (it would) and B) that a revolution is almost certain to fail (it is). Those are the odds you need to take responsibility for if you want to rise up. You'll likely fail, and that failure will hasten the very thing you fear.

Now you can indulge in fantasies about how you'd do the same things as those in the Warsaw Ghetto or Todd Beamer, but the fact remains that your suicide, glorious though you imagine it, will be for naught at best. At best.

These are facts, and if you're honest, you'll face them. And as you get closer to whatever line you think is "it," you and your buddies will have to face them. As you face them, you'll be jarred out of your fantasies. You'll drop off one by one (you're a fool if you count on any of them). Whoever is left will see the futility. You won't rebel.


The IRA brought England to its knees and the bargaining table and the Afghan guerillas kept the Soviets at bay for 10 years Actually, the English went to the table because the IRA was collapsing so the English held all the cards. That is why the English walked away still in charge of NI and with the IRA agreeing to give up its guns. I'd hardly call that an IRA victory.

As for Afghanistan, the rebels had the support of nearly 100% of the population (you won't have that), they were facing a foreign enemy (you won't be), and they were financed with billions (with a b) from foreign nations in both the West and the Middle East (you won't have such aid).

Face reality.

beerslurpy
June 29, 2005, 11:00 AM
You guys need to read Sling and the Stone by Thomas X. Hammes. Armed insurrection is NOT the best route to take, even when you are perfectly willing to use force. "Non-violent" movements often tend to garner a lot more political sympathy than movements perceived as bloodthirsty.

This is why the palestinians gained so much ground when they were only throwing stones and demanding a piece of land to call their own, but lost all sympathy when they switched to suicide bombings and demands for an end to israeli. In one instance the Israelis were fighting against a foe with reasonable demands- in another the israelis were fighting against a bloodthirsty foe intent on their distruction.

Similarly, this is why OK City was bad- it was less about people demanding the right to self defense (a reasonable human rights issue) than it was about people violently demanding the end of the federal government (a direct attack upon a powerful foe).

Mao says that this stage of an insurrection should not involve violence except assasinations and other propaganda actions. The aim of violence is to establish the movement as a real political player and demonstrate its goals. Real violence only becomes necessary far far later when the political victory is complete but those in power refuse to recognize it.

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 12:35 PM
Beerslupry (love that name by the way, but I prefer ScotchSlupries myself)...I never said violence wasa the best or the first. I have worked and continue to work through the "soap box & ballet box". Isaid it was the last resort.

Thank you for your reply...I really appreciate it and I have to admitt I have changed my mind. Violence is not the way, so I am turning in my guns to the local authorities for proper destruction. After all guns are only made for one thing, KILLING. They are not for fun, not for target practice and certainly not for us peasants. We will simply have to face facts and allow the Federal Government, et.al. to continue to add links to our chains of bondage, because in the end ALL IS FUTILE.

I mean the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independance obviously didn't really mean it when they signed away their lives and their sacred honor, etc. Look; they lost family, homes, land, property and in some cases their lives. And was it worth it? I guess not!

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 12:48 PM
thereisnospoon,

Now, you've simply erected a straw man argument based on a false dichotomy.

In any event, earlier you wrote about being willing "to face what if." It is you who needs to face "what if" -- the real "what if," not the fantasy version.

Lofty rhetoric and dreams of glory are the luxury of men at peace. If you rebel, they won't matter. All that will matter is that you'll likely fail and that your failure will just make things worse.

Are you prepared to take responsibility for that? That's part of facing the real "what if."

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 01:07 PM
Please explain my straw man argument?

If the time comes, and people do act, won't we have already lost all anyway? You never have answered that question from earlier. You keep saying that violence only makes matters worse, but can they be so bad that violence is the only answer?

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 01:26 PM
You keep saying that violence only makes matters worse, but can they be so bad that violence is the only answer? I never said that violence only makes matters worse. I can name dozens of instances where violence makes matters better.

I said that rebellion is nearly certain to fail, and that its failure will make matters worse. If you're going to seriously consider rebellion, you'd better have the guts to face that responsibility.

I've got nothing against rebellion from a moral or philosophical standpoint. But I harbor no delusions about the likely success of one in the USA. That's the real "what if." Thus, I do have something against a US rebellion as a practical matter.

Now you can say that failure doesn't matter, that you'd rather go out in a blaze of suicidal glory. I say that someone who does that is selfish, not caring for how he'll make things worse for those left behind.

You keep resorting to lofty rhetoric and allusions to great Americans. As you approach that real "what if" you'll be forced to leave all that behind. You’ll be forced to face the likely results of your actions. You won’t rebel.

*****
Incidentally, your straw man argument is that bit about turning in your guns because they are meant only for killing, yada yada yada. The false dichotomy is the bit about either accepting a rebellion as a viable option or rejecting violence in general.

cpileri
June 29, 2005, 01:29 PM
I see a common point between cuchullain and theironspoon.

Both point out some truths:

1. some will fight, some wont, some want to, some don't; some who want to still wont

2. a lone fighter, noble though he may be, will be a martyr

3. a lone fighter will be ineffective in achieving the goal of stopping the oppression

4. effecively stopping tyranny is the goal

therefore,
1. the winner of the first conflict MUST have a widely publicized CRUSHING victory. The need to rally support to your cause and demoralize the political and fighting machine of your enemy is key, and the tone for the rest of the conflict will be set at the opening battles. YOU need to be on the winning side! Then newly emboldened sympathizers will join up- just like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

2. The winning side will have an organized, large group with a plan and specific goals: i.e. take out enemy leaders, and take as many prisoners as possible; destroy or capture enemy equipment, get it all on film for a propaganda movie.

3. The winning side will have acted prior to hostilities, that is acting NOW, to form this large group (preventing lots of lone future martyrs); who will come together ONLY if they think they can win. The few dedicated idealists will be there regardless, but the volunteers will increase as victory, and thus less personal risk and perhaps even some gain, seems more certain.

4. the winning side will pursue ALL avenues to their goal. Combat, sure. But also propaganda, community service (hook up an evicted family with a roof over their head and watch the public support roll in), politics, discipline (i.e. not allowing your image to falter because 2 of your enrollees raped a local teenager after a night of drinking), etc.

So, i just thought of these things to reconcile some of the distance between 2 guys who both have valid points.
C-

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 01:48 PM
cpileri,

Good to see you've found the high road. Thanks for your comments.

chi...

You are right, my yak/yak about turning in my guns was just me being the plain old smart&## that I am, not really an argument of any type.

What is frustrating though is that you continue to avoid the hard questions I have asked you and yammered away about fantasy and make things worse for my posterity, etc.

Let me ask the questions again;

1. If the big "when" comes, won't it be because we have lost so much that living under that guise of "freedom" wouldn't be worth it? I remeber some quote by a famous writer about something being so sweet and so dear...

2. How do you know with such certainty what each individual will do in the future? You have failed repeatedly to address the people who have risen to the ocassion when it was demanded of them.

Thanks for the great point counter-point by the way, I feel like Chevy Chase and Jane Curtain...


Edited to add:

Guess this guy is a fantasy-laden moron as well...

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. " -- Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

Sorry, couldn't resist... :neener:

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 02:39 PM
cpileri: So, i just thought of these things to reconcile some of the distance between 2 guys who both have valid points. You lay out a good strategy for rebellion. It won't happen in the USA.


thereisnospoon: If the big "when" comes, won't it be because we have lost so much that living under that guise of "freedom" wouldn't be worth it? Noble? Perhaps. Worth it? No, I don't see a failed rebellion that simply makes matters even worse as "worth it." I see it as a selfish suicide.

As I said, I've got nothing against rebellion in general. But as a practical last-ditch solution for modern USA, I know it won't work. If the modern USA ever gets to the point where rebellion is justified, sadly, it will mean only that the tyrants have won.

Don't delude yourself that a suicidal blaze of glory will matter.


thereisnospoon: How do you know with such certainty what each individual will do in the future? Because I know that rebellion in modern USA is destined to failure, and that failure will make matters worse.

When faced with the certainty that their actions -- no matter how noble -- will make matters worse, people won't rebel. This includes you.



thereisnospoon: You have failed repeatedly to address the people who have risen to the ocassion when it was demanded of them. I haven't "failed" to address them. I simply see your point as a non sequitur. I'm aware that people are capable of amazing bravery and sacrifice. Nonetheless, the noble actions of the Warsaw Jews and Beamer prove nothing about A) the likelihood of armed rebellion in modern USA or B) its likely success.


thereisnospoon: Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003 The judge is correct about the reasons the founders wrote the 2nd. The primary purpose was to help ensure that the people of the USA would have the means to armed rebellion.

Nonetheless: A) Modern Americans won't rebel. B) If they did, they'd fail.

Another non sequitur (not to mention an appeal to authority"

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 02:50 PM
Rebellion will fail...non sequitur


when faced with failure, all will roll over and wet on themselves....non sequitur


:neener:


BTW I never said I wanted to go out in a Blaze of Glory, it seems all the modern sofistication of the US Armed Forces can't find two little guys in the Middle East, I think their names are Bin Laden and Zarqaui something or other

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 02:51 PM
I'll take that as your consession on the point.

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 02:55 PM
It was meant as an insult to your inability to deal with it, so you call it non sequitur to try and avoid it.

Because you think something is unlikely does not make it reality.

And, I notice you failed to address the examples of extraordinary behavior, other to call it Noble and futile....

Werewolf
June 29, 2005, 02:58 PM
Hypothetically and just for fun:

What about secession? Might that succeed.

IMO it could if:

The seceeding states are geographically contiguous and ideally have a coastline.

The economic conditions of the country as a whole are in severe recession or depression such that military manpower has been allowed to go down and equipment has stopped being maintained.

I imagine the states with the best chance of successfully seceeding and making it stick would be the gulf coast states or those in the Pacific Northwest.

The gulf coast states have a military heritage, many indigenous bases, the population and industrial base to make it stick. One assumes that some of the forces in the military bases might choose to stay loyal to the US but there are with the exception of Ft Hood in Texas no active regular army divisions in those states. Nearest active army division is in CO. Lotsa active Air Force units. Might get sticky for a while but short of invasion by active army units in the rest of the country I doubt if much could be done by the gubmint. If the gulf states did seceed I believe that most of the population and thus the NG, army, navy and air force reserve units would stick by the states.

Same would pretty much hold true of the Pacific NW. Is the 9th Inf Div still at Ft. Lewis?

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 03:02 PM
Werewolf,

Great idea, but you might as well give it up...resistance is futile, even the fun kind. :neener:

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 03:02 PM
It was meant as an insult Exactly. I showed that your points were non sequiturs. You replied with potshots and :neener:

I'll take that as a consession on the matter.

Because you think something is unlikely does not make it reality. Of course not. But in this particular case I'm correct. Americans won't rebel. If they did, they'd fail.

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 03:10 PM
Werewolf,

I wouldn't discount the economic power of California or the North East (Mason Dixon-ish and north), Eloi notwithstanding. I think both regions are economically and militarily capable of standing as independent nations. Whether they'd want to is another question. ;)

spartacus2002
June 29, 2005, 03:36 PM
Those discussing secession make a dangerous assumption, mainly that the state govts of seceding states would want the kinds of laws that you, I, or we would want.

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 03:40 PM
Sparticus,

I make no such assumptions.

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 03:42 PM
cuch,

I am having delayed intelligence, which happens to me very frequently, especially the older I get.

You have called my arguments non sequitur, yet you have based your entire argument on the fact that YOU believe armed rebellion will fail, not on any facts, just your opinions. I recalled instances from the past where men have risen against great odds and won, and you call them non sequitur because you believe armed rebellion (which I never mentioned BTW) will inexplicably fail in modern day America.

Ummm....got anything else?

Khaotic
June 29, 2005, 03:53 PM
Consider the last time someone tried seccession/revolt?

I will not argue the causes, and please don't, because that's way off the point imma aiming to make here..

The southerners honestly believed in what they were doing, were a pretty gun-friendly people and had a decent level of organization, at least initially.

And regardless of the reasons, they fought on till there was almost no one left alive able TO fight - and they still LOST.

The same general type in power in washington then, is still the same type as there is today, perfectly willing to send hordes of armed conscriptees to bury you in bodies, yours, theirs, they don't care cause it's not THEIR blood on the ground.

You see where I am going here ?

Such a thing would likely provoke a (very short!) civil war, in which case in order to have any appreciable effect you'd have to cut down hordes of your fellow citizens whom you have no grudge with, and only fault is that they obeyed the administration for whatever reason, this wouldn't net you lots of sympathy from the home town, and volunteers vs conscripts is a losing battle to begin with just on the logistics.

Would you really be willing to mow down the very people who's lot you wished to improve ?

The sheer mechanics of it makes any form of standard conflict suicide.
However conflict is not just limited to exchanging live ammo, there's more ways to jam up the works on an administration you despise than outright blatant resistance which provokes a hostile and overwhelming response.

Study history, and you will find many examples of other means every bit as effective.

-K

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 04:11 PM
I recalled instances from the past where men have risen against great odds and won, and you call them non sequitur because you believe armed rebellion (which I never mentioned BTW) will inexplicably fail in modern day America. No, I said those examples prove neither that Americans will rebel today nor that they will succeed.

Case A) Warsaw Ghetto -- Non Americans 60 years ago rebel and fail. Not today. Not Americans. Not successful.

Case B) Scott Beamer -- American today takes an action action that is brave but that has nothing to do with rebellion against the government. Not a rebellion.


You have called my arguments non sequitur, yet you have based your entire argument on the fact that YOU believe armed rebellion will fail, not on any facts, just your opinions. Actually, I look to two facts:

A) Getting a large enough group to rebel is improbable.
B) Beating the might of the USA is improbable.

Combining the two, I see improbability approach impossibility.

On the other hand, you look to such things as the rhetoric of the Founders and your admiration of Scott Beamer. This emotional indulgence lets you believe your fantasy to the core of your little heart. But it means nothing on a practical level

Werewolf
June 29, 2005, 04:30 PM
I recalled instances from the past where men have risen against great odds and won, and you call them non sequitur because you believe armed rebellion (which I never mentioned BTW) will inexplicably fail in modern day America.(there's a movie, a TV show or a novel in this somewhere) :D

I don't agree with chuculain that folks don't have the will to rebel. An armed rebellion could occur in the US IMO. There's folks now (a tiny minority to be sure) who have the will and the courage to take action.

However, they lack the organization, leadership and the where withall to do such a thing. Americans (though their numbers dwindle more and more as time goes by) have a great capacity to do the right thing at the right time given proper leadership and a reasonable - hell - even a slim chance of success but given current circumstances that chance is (and I have to agree with chuch on this) none. Right now armed rebellion isn't gonna happen but that's now; the future is open to speculation.

Lets assume that the necessary leadership and organization are somehow brought into existence.

What would the goal of the rebellion be? Let's assume that it would be to replace the current federal government with one that understands it exists to protect our rights and not to grant them. In addition the Union must be maintained. I imagine an armed rebellion with that goal could go on for years, maybe even decades. Irregardless an armed rebellion with the goal of overthrowing the federal government, replacing it and maintaining the Union is doomed to eventual failure because of the structure of our Nation at all levels.

Just for the sake of argument though assume that the central government of the United States of America goes down in flames. The rebels take over Washington and kill every politician and bureauocrat there. No more federal government. No one to give orders to the military. No one to collect taxes, no federal reserve, etc etc etc. What then? Are the state governments gonna just roll over and take orders from the rebels now sitting in the Whitehouse?

Probably not. At that point I believe that the US would cease to exist and states of like mind would join together to form their own new nations; some might even go it alone but one thing I know for sure is that the Union would be dead. There'd be no reason at all for the state governments to take orders from the rebels in Washington - why should they?

This is an extremely complicated issue but what it boils down to is that no armed rebellion would or could succeed in reestablishing lost liberties at the national level; the structure and nature of the US prevents it. (and anyone who believes we can vote those liberties back is living in a world with pink skies and blue bunnies) What government that has ever existed has given back liberties which it once took? If there is one I am not aware of it.

The United States is still the freest nation on the planet but that is changing day by day. Eventually the day will come when we truly a police state (see my sig for why that will happen). Eventually the US will die the same way all other great nations of the past have died. What will replace it is anyone's guess. Hopefully it will be with something better than we've got now.

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 04:35 PM
Chuc,

Good points, I will conceed, although it took you long enough to point them out to your humble (friendly) opponent, but again, I would like to point out that I do not recall ever saying we would or should "rise up in mass numbers and stand shoulder to shoulder to be mowed down by the opposing forces".

I wouldn't nor have I ever said I would like to go out in a "blaze of glory", I just know in my itty-bitty heart of hearts that I will only stand for so much. Every man has a breaking point, yours may be different than mine, but even a dog can only be whipped so many times until he eithers dies from a lack of spirit or turns and bites the hand that whips him.

Maybe it is the Macheavellian romantic in me, but I refuse to be a subject.

Another unanswered question...in your posts you have repeatedly said that I should give up my fantasy world and fight the fight that needs to be fought...Are they mutually exclusive? Should Patrick Henry and Nelson Mandella have ben silent, or did their rhetoric bring about much needed change?

Khaotic:
Good point about the civil war, but again I am not nor would I advocate some form of armeb rebellion facin the government troops face to face in the streets or hillsides. Ummmm...... all they would need is like four or five Apaches and some tanks, etc. In all of my posts I have made it clear I am talking about guerialla like resistance.

Let's face it, America is the easiest place to get lost in in the world. Telecommunications makes that hard, but there are people who have evaded the authorities for years. Take Eric Rudolph for example...(I am not advocating what he did, just that he was able to evade authorities for so long).

Werewolf:

Good posts, but what to do if thats the case?

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 04:41 PM
I don't agree with chuculain that folks don't have the will to rebel. An armed rebellion could occur in the US IMO. There's folks now (a tiny minority to be sure) who have the will and the courage to take action. But they won't for two facts:

Fact A) Getting enough people to rebel is improbable.
Fact B) Beating the might of the USA is improbable.

Conclusion A): These two improbabilities combine to approach impossibility.

Conclusion B): People understand Conclusion A. This excerbates Fact A, leading to a kind of circular reasoning that defeats any chance for rebellion. Circular reasoning may be illogical, but nonetheless it operates here.

Add to the mix

Fact C) If the USA becomes a tyranny, it will be a comfortable tyranny.

and the spiral become greater.

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 04:53 PM
Should Patrick Henry and Nelson Mandella have ben silent, or did their rhetoric bring about much needed change? Patrick Henry orated only after rebellion was immanent. It's a myth that his "liberty or death" speech tipped the balance towards violence. In any event, he kept his mouth shut about violent rebellion while there was still a chance for other solutions. Once rebellion was near, he gave great speeches for bucking up the troops -- but that's different from what you speak of.

I honestly don't know enough about Mandella's rhetoric to speak on it. I'll note however, that he succeeded only after he adopted the role of the "peaceable prisoner," for what that's worth.

Another unanswered question...in your posts you have repeatedly said that I should give up my fantasy world and fight the fight that needs to be fought...Are they mutually exclusive? Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Your fantasy won't bring about the changes we need. But indulging in such rhetoric while there's still a chance for peaceful solutions does little but undermine those solutions (not to mention your credibility).

Werewolf
June 29, 2005, 05:05 PM
But they won't for two facts:

Fact A) Getting enough people to rebel is improbable.
Fact B) Beating the might of the USA is improbable.

Conclusion A): These two improbabilities combine to approach impossibility.Given current circumstances I agree with your conclusion but current circumstances are that there is a lack of leadership, organization and where with all. There is no lack of will in a select few Americans.

In the event that the aforementioned deficiencies are corrected the US Government would be well advised to gear up for a resistance similar to that which occured in Ireland and for a similar amount of time.

The end result will as you've said be the eventual defeat of the resistance but it will be a long, bloody and devisive road getting there.

ravinraven
June 29, 2005, 05:29 PM
...or give me death!


BLAP! ------------ Next.

That's from an old comedy show about the revolutionary times.

"All this talk of resistance using the 2A is nonsense. How pray tell would one go about resisting without the end result being anything other than jail or death for the resistors."

1. You don't make a frontal attack against a nuclear power.
2. If we somehow managed to dump the gov't what would take it's place?
3. Change the word "terrorist" to "micro-warfare technologist" and see how that sounds.
4. Realize that there are soldiers and LEOs who are as concerned with the loss of the BoR as us standard issue clowns. They might well work with us.
5. Wage micro-warfare being especially careful of target selection and with absolutely NO colateral damage.
6. The goal is to save the overall structure while removing some rotten material through micro-warfare actions.

Organize a tight knit group with absolute discipline and total secrecy.

These groups do exist now. They are growing slowly stronger. They are impossible to locate if you wanted to join one. If some member of one of these groups notices that you might make a great addition to the group, you will be contacted and invited in but you will go through a security clearance check and spend a few years before getting to the inner circles of a group.

Or, organize such a group yourself for the purpose of surgically removing and repairing flaws in the "structure" that you become aware of. The larger this thing grows, the easier it may be for a going group to make contact with another group and not wind up in the pen. It takes delicate doing. If you're interested in a future with liberty in it, this is probably the only way.

I wish I knew more and some specific methods of organization I could pass on to you. It has caused me to regain faith in the future of liberty.

rr

Henry Bowman
June 29, 2005, 05:35 PM
They are impossible to locate if you wanted to join one. If some member of one of these groups notices that you might make a great addition to the group, you will be contacted and invited in but you will go through a security clearance check and spend a few years before getting to the inner circles of a group. But will they locate the "Henry Bowmans" of the world before it's too late? Not from what I've seen.

cpileri
June 29, 2005, 06:28 PM
Actually, i have been here since it started, way back when TFL closed down.

I know that you and I have just recently 'met' over on saiga forums, but I've been here all along.

I'm an addict.

One thing I have noticed is that for the first time in my life, EVERYONE (except the govt and ruling elite, etc) from all sides of the political spectrum are in agreement that the Kelo decision is WRONG.

I have a lot of faith that the fallout from having virtually 100% of the voters wanting something will push the legislators to make it happen. Support has never been this strong for anything in my memory.

If nothing happens, well... then we truly have been abandoned by our elected masters. In which case, who the h__l cares at that point.
C-

Baba Louie
June 29, 2005, 06:30 PM
Dear Uncle Sam, et al,

OK. This is IT! We’re tired of you playing your Bullshine games with all of our freedoms.

Cease and desist… Now. Or else.

We want all of you out, now. Each and every elected congressperson and Senator, your appointed lackey lapdog justices and each and every bureaucratic “Official”; be gone.

Somehow, some way, we’ll come up with better, smarter persons to run things, pay the bills, debts and services you’ve managed to screw up for the past 250 years (well, really only the last 90 - 160 years), revise or throw out all the insane legislation passed, go back to the original income tax/tariff system. We’ll find people to deal with all those damn foreigners and their nonsensical nations. We’ll come up with somebody to deal with our military and nuclear arsenal, our space program. Someone is bound to know something about minting money and dealing with the economy. We’ll find them too.

We’re going to go back to the way things are supposed to be, the way our forefathers wanted it to be. Liberty for some and equality for white men over 21 years of age who own land. We will not let women and blacks vote because they just don’t understand the way things are supposed to be. I suppose that will upset them initially, but they’ll see that the old ways are the best and only way to do things.

It won’t be pretty and it won’t be easy and if everyone doesn’t see things our way, we’ll deal with them the old fashioned way.

Just remember, we have the guns and we have the gumption to use them. You can go peacefully and quietly, or you can go the hard way. The question being, are you willing to die for the monster you have created? We know that we’re willing to die for the cause of freedom and liberty. We know where you guys live, what you do, where you work. It’s time to start over. We cannot possibly screw it up any worse that you already have.

You're either for us. Or against us.

You have until July 3, midnight, to get out.

Most Extremely & Sincerely Yours,

The 21st Century Son’s of the Son’s of Liberty

cc Governor of each State, Mayor of each City (might as well go whole hog)

;)

But who is going to Bell the Cat or help make the bread? :scrutiny:

You cannot control a Free Man. You can only kill him. R.A.Heinlien

spartacus2002
June 29, 2005, 07:09 PM
I honestly don't know enough about Mandella's rhetoric to speak on it. I'll note however, that he succeeded only after he adopted the role of the "peaceable prisoner," for what that's worth

In today's world, Mandela would be thrown in Gitmo while the Dept of Fatherland Sekurity mouthpieces would put on their Important Frowns in front of the TV cameras and speculate how he was alleged to have sold drugs, produced child porn, evaded taxes, and owned an assault rifle. :banghead:

thereisnospoon
June 29, 2005, 07:13 PM
Carl,

Sorry, I had never seen a post with your name prior to today, glad to see it. Sorry the Saiga Hi-cap mag project died...hope you didn't get caught in the fallout of it. I haven't been back since it got ugly.

Hope to talk to you more and more.

Chuc,

First of all there you go again, assuming that I ever had any credability. :neener:

Here's my last post on this subject, because it is obvious you and I will never agree, nor will we ever convince the other that he is wrong.

You have great debating skills (and mine suck, for the most part, but I try to hold my own), but the one thing you do not factor into your logical arguments is the human spirit, and more specifically the American spirit. We can point/counter-point all day and all night (we have already done that), but the facts are everything doesn't fit into that l;ittle box you so neatly contruct.

Tell me how the insurgents in Iraq have kept America on its heels (you missed answering that one)!

Enjoy your freedom while it lasts.

Atticus
June 29, 2005, 07:17 PM
I don't know where you folks live......but I could walk into any gun store in town tommorrow and walk out with 10K rounds of ammo and any semi- auto anything made. I own more guns than the last ten generasions of my family combined. I have a concealed carry permit...but would carry without if I felt the need. Besides I can still vote, protest, burn the flag (but wouldn't), and just about anything else. Wuz up with this sense of hopelessness I read on here?

R.H. Lee
June 29, 2005, 07:30 PM
cuchulainn, the Neville Chamberlain of THR. :p

IMO, any 'armed rebellion' (if it happens) will not occur over any 'loss of rights'. We're way to wimpy and unprincipled for that. Instead, it will happen over loss of comforts (food, clothing, shelter, toys, etc.) As the central bureaucracy of the socialists increases, economic growth will most assuredly decline. More will have less, some will have near nothing with nothing to lose. They will become dangerous and spark some level of violence against the ruling elite. If enough have memories of the founding principles of this country, or fear losing what they do have, more will join the rebellion and possibly topple the regime.

That's my opinion.

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 07:41 PM
Tell me how the insurgents in Iraq have kept America on its heels (you missed answering that one)! If you're using Iraq as a model for your fantasy American rebellion, you'd be confusing harassment with winning. You'd also be ignoring the differences between a fight against foreign invader that is thousands of miles from its home and a domestic rebellion. You'd be ignoring a lot of other differences.

cuchulainn
June 29, 2005, 07:44 PM
Wuz up with this sense of hopelessness I read on here? It's necessary to sustain the fantasy that the revolution is near.

Werewolf
June 29, 2005, 11:49 PM
IMO, any 'armed rebellion' (if it happens) will not occur over any 'loss of rights'. We're way to wimpy and unprincipled for that. Instead, it will happen over loss of comforts (food, clothing, shelter, toys, etc.) Now this is an excellent supposition that I for one had not considered.

In any society with a large enough population since the Romans the bread and circuses principle has been operative. Once either is curtailed a society tends to fall.

This could be the answer to the not enough people problem. Take away their TV, their beer and good food and Joe SixPack will be beatin' down the doors to get at the pols responsible.

Of course any pol who knows even a smattering of history is aware of the Bread and Circuses principle. It's in full swing in the US - hell this forum and the internet are integral parts of the principle. Knowing that how likely is it that the pols will allow the current iteration of bread and circuses to go away or in their loss not find an adequate substitute - can anyone say DRUGS!

Gung-Ho
June 30, 2005, 12:56 AM
Oh, but it couldn't happen here... could it?

I think it already did....remember what happened to the Bonus Army?

Jacobus Rex
June 30, 2005, 02:18 AM
Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressor?

First of all, despite fantasies to the contrary, we have an elected government. Our current state of government for good OR bad is the result of OUR own choice. Most Americans find sports, beer, or any other manner of things far more important than making informed decisions about their government. The American people still have the power to change government far more effectively than any "revolution."

Secondly, no people that care more about Hollywood than the constitution can ever successfully have a revolution. Does anyone really think that people to lazy to make an informed vote with a ballot will ever "vote from the roof tops"? Of course not, such a notion is pure nonsense. The most the average person could ever hope for in a revolution of that type is to beg the local mob ruling their neighborhood to allow them to have enough food to avoid starvation. A revolution in such an environment would herald a new dark age for not only the US but most of the rest of the world. Riots and violence by criminals should never be confused with fighting for freedom. Chaos is a poor form of revolution and an even worse replacement for a badly flawed but otherwise fundamentally sound government.

Thirdly, a single nut job or even a mob of nut jobs does not a revolution make. To use America's only two examples of revolutions to illustrate:

American Revolution: Had an organized confederation of states with a real government, army, etc. Not just a handful of nuts with guns. The Revolutionary War had broad support (from 30% to 50% of the population.) The colonies had evolved into a separate people ruled by a foreign power that failed to allow home rule.

American Civil War: The CSA was created as a direct result of the voters and their elected officials. It was not the result of unorganized masses suddenly rising up. As a side note, revolutions by unorganized masses are only effective against very weak or corrupt governments in the last stages of collapse. The war was unsuccessful from the standpoint of the South because of the nature of warfare with an industrial power. The South fought better and harder than any modern “revolutionaries” could ever hope for a people to fight and they still lost to the vastly stronger foe.

Lastly, to think that we are “oppressed” displays a complete lack of historical knowledge. We live in the freest country in the history of the world. To fight unavoidable tyranny is one thing but to compare our situation to oppression is insane. We have the power to restore eroded rights at the ballot box at any time we choose to. People that would support a revolution or other acts of violence in our current circumstance would be no more than terrorists. I’m not naive enough to think that the US will be free forever, however, to wish a hand in its destruction is treasonous. History teaches us that all nations pass through cycles and that all fail in time. We have no need to hasten a slide toward the abyss.

Jacobus Rex

thereisnospoon
June 30, 2005, 03:47 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=145086


If this works, it will prove to me we can still affect change in the USA and I will not only eat my tinfoil hat, but all my words posted here. :D

beerslurpy
June 30, 2005, 03:52 AM
you'd be confusing harassment with winning
Youre confusing vietnam with winning. Harassment is the prime ingredient of 4th gen warfare. The weak enemy harasses the strong and overcomes through superior staying power.

This doesnt just apply to shooting matches. If, for example, gun owners consistently push to have their rights respected and the opposition is only lukewarm, eventually gunowners will overcome at the soap box and the ballot box. We are already seeing this in the past 10 years. CCW, no more AWB, Democrats not touching gun control with a 10 foot pole, etc.

A shooting match vs the government would have been counterproductive- instead we harass and take political action and win a complete victory. Its not complete yet, but it will be someday. We just keep pushing them back. It took the vietnamese nearly 30 years. It took Mao 28.

Obviously issues like the promotion of property rights and conservatism are beholden to these same principles. If anything, this ED case will cause more people to become involved in the fight against government encroachment on property rights, which is a good thing.

beerslurpy
June 30, 2005, 04:17 AM
One other thing I would like to add, which is that warfare (especially warfare between civilians and the armies of nation-states) is less about fighting with tanks and guns than it is about fighting with politics.

If a political victory can be achieved by people talking to other people and voting, that is wonderful. Example: current US situation

If violence committed by one side will cause it to lose political capitol, then violence would be bad. Example: 9/11 made Al queda look very bad and also encouraged the US to mobilize and hit back. Bad move.

If violence committted by one side will cause it to gain political capitol, then violence would be good. Example: political assassinations and terrorism in iraq greatly strengthen the hand of the insurgents and weaken that of the US every time they succeed.

The point is not that violence is good or violence is bad, its that the importance and worth of violence is measured by the effect it has on the various audiences perceiving it and how that affects the political situation. Violence is not about bravery or about taking a stand, although those are ideas that could be used to political advantage if violence occurred. The main object must always be political.

Also remember that our greatest defeats can turn out to be our greatest victories if they rouse enough people to anger. The Democrats were pounding gun owners in the ass for nearly 30 years without anyone really doing anything to fight back. The AWB was a great defeat at first, but it ended up mobilizing a huge army of enemies to fight against them. Similarly, Pearly Harbor and 9/11 were both great defeats for the US, but they gave our country focus and spurred us on to greater accomplishments in the political and military arenas.

spartacus2002
June 30, 2005, 07:39 AM
We have the power to restore eroded rights at the ballot box at any time we choose to.

Tell that to the folks who voted Libertarian.

cuchulainn
June 30, 2005, 09:25 AM
Jacobus Rex,

Hear! Hear!

EghtySx
June 30, 2005, 10:33 AM
Ya, we did elect those in Washington...at least some of us did I guess..didn't we?

I know I didn't vote for Feinstein ... or (fill in the blank)

The Fed was not supposed to be as powerful as it is. The problem with it is that I don't need some whiny little half a sissy from california (new york, boston, ...) telling me what is best for me in Texas.

rhubarb
June 30, 2005, 10:34 AM
Jacobus Rex said:
We live in the freest country in the history of the world.

Amurka used to enjoy the most freedom in the history of the world. It’s history now. The point of the discussion of rebellion is that we need to regain the freedom of our past.

Secession? Rebellion? Won’t happen. The gummint’s power extends far beyond its military strength. Any time someone gets too far out of line, our alphabet soup overlords put them in their place. The whole point of the Weaver murders was that the gummint was trying to get Randy Weaver to help them infiltrate a “hate group” and dogpiled him when he refused.

Last secessionist movement ended with the leaders surrendering after an armed standoff. Remember Richard McLaren of “Republic of Texas” fame? The gummint hunted them down, portrayed them as terrorists and frauds and locked them up.

"These defendants are not proud Texans, but paper terrorists. They're not revolutionaries, but rip-off artists. They're not patriots, but parasites. In short, they're bullies," said U.S. Attorney Paul Coggins in announcing the 16-page indictment.

In the news articles I read, the neighbors just wanted the standoff to be over so they could go home. Pan et circum

I used to think that all these anti-gummint whack jobs were an amusing sideshow much along the likes of rap music stars. I reckon I’m a tinfoil hat whack job now. If the gummint brings any kind of legal action against someone who opposes the ‘correct’ viewpoint, I automatically side with the bad guy. Maybe, just maybe, in my wildest fantasy I could see a small nationwide movement start as the result of someone’s successful armed resistance to the powers that be…but it would be crushed and after the news reports faded people would turn the teevee back to Oprah and football.

I for one don't want my two young sons to grow up as the children of a member of an "anti-American terrorist hate group" who was gunned down as he tried to destroy the sanctity and peace of our great country. I'm gonna hold my cards a while longer.

Baba Louie
June 30, 2005, 12:06 PM
Jacobus Rex

Most Excellant Sir
We have no need to hasten a slide toward the abyss.

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 01:49 PM
It's illegal? I think that was his point. We are headed to where what you do now is illegal and it is getting harder and harder to stop them from chipping away at what we have left.

I do not agree with this. I think we have made a lot of progress with gun rights in the last decade. The AWB died. More states than ever have "shall issue" CCW laws. More states than ever have preemption laws.

Some states will never be gun friendly. Let the libs have them damn states. This is one reason why we have different states.

In Virginia, we have enjoyed a Democratic governor that has signed virtually every piece of pro-Gun legislation that has hit his desk.

We have gained preemption. CCW in your car on school property. As many handguns as you want for CCW permit holders. Liberal open carry laws. Still a few more "bad" laws to go but I feel like we're making real progress.

We have to be vigilant to protect our 2nd Amendment rights. But overall I think we're gaining more ground than losing in most areas of the country.

thereisnospoon
June 30, 2005, 02:49 PM
I enjoyed everyone's responses so much I couldn't resist posting just one more thing.

BabieLuie: You ever thought of being a professional satirist? That was hilarious stuff, sounded almost like it came from the press room of a big New York City Newspaper, trying to paint some on this thread as ludicous half-wits...

I think most people are making some really BIG assupmtions in this dialog, and are using that to exploit their views. But if that what it takes to win a debate, insterad of facts and logic, o.k.

The only people I find using the term(s) rebellion and revolution are the people who are against such ideas. They inject the idea into the dialog and then call it crazy. Ummmmmm......it's subtle, but its akin to the same tactics anti-gunners use.

And finally, I really think that those who look down their nose at those of us who talk of using our 2A rights, as given to us by the framers of the US Constitution, to stop the continuous barrage of assaults on our freedoms and rights, are really too afraid to think of ever actually having to use their "toys" to defend themselves, and must therefore, make fun of and ridicule those of us who might do that and make them appear weak and feeble.

cuchulainn
June 30, 2005, 03:32 PM
The only people I find using the term(s) rebellion and revolution are the people who are against such ideas. They inject the idea into the dialog and then call it crazy. Ummmmmm......it's subtle, but its akin to the same tactics anti-gunners use. What words would you use to describe using guns to fight the government? :scrutiny:

You claim to be willing to fight, but balk at those words. Wow. Yep, I'm even more confident that you wouldn't do it despite your lip service.

I really think that those who look down their nose at those of us who talk of using our 2A rights, as given to us by the framers of the US Constitution, to stop the continuous barrage of assaults on our freedoms and rights, are really too afraid... Yeah, I was expecting that ad hominem argument to enter the debate, but not from you.

The debate was over A) would Americans rebel and B) could they succeed if they did rebel. Your critics' bravery or cowardice is irrellevant to those two questions.

I expected more from you than school yard tactics. Well, I'll take that as further concession.

thereisnospoon
June 30, 2005, 04:16 PM
Chuch,

You think too highly of me my friend.

Anyway, it was not really so much a school yard insult as it was a real conclusion I came to after reading this thread for the hundredth time. I like the debate, don't get me wrong, but I believe you think resistance is futile and I believe resistance is inevitable. Maybe the thread is well titled, as "The Ultimate Conundrum"

I guess along the way I forgot about the thread starters original question..."Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppressors?"

The answer is probably because the fire isn't hot enough yet, for some, for others it never will never be "hot" enough, as you have so eloquently put it.

But I ask a new question as a cotinuation of the original thought, especially for those who are so adamantly opposed to even discussing this type of question...

If all else fails and all measures of diplomacy, voting, letter writing, cajoling, etc. have been exhausted, would you rather fight or leave a shattered Republic for your children.

Several have said they would rather live under adverse conditions than die "in a blaze of glory" (which I doubt anyone relaly wants to do) and others have vehemently suggested they would rather die than live in a totalitairan or similar circumstance, or worse , leave the problem for their children to take care of.

What's a gun nut to do?

cuchulainn
June 30, 2005, 04:33 PM
The answer is probably because the fire isn't hot enough yet, for some, for others it never will never be "hot" enough, as you have so eloquently put it. Those positions don't really matter.

The point you are missing is that you cannot rebel on your own, but Americans won't rebel with you. It's not about you wanting to and us not wanting to. It's about realistic predictions: would Americans rebel (no) and would they succeed (no).

Even if rebellion were justified, it wouldn't occur. Even if it occured, it wouldn't succeed. Those are facts that you have to seriously consider if you're going to talk about taking up arms.

but I believe you think resistance is futile No, I believe armed rebellion would be futile. I'm not being pedantic. There's a significant difference.

Several have said they would rather live under adverse conditions No one has said that. Just because we recognize the futility of armed rebellion doesn't mean we're expressing a preference.

thereisnospoon
June 30, 2005, 05:21 PM
Those positions don't really matter.

The point you are missing is that you cannot rebel on your own, but Americans won't rebel with you. It's not about you wanting to and us not wanting to. It's about realistic predictions: would Americans rebel (no) and would they succeed (no).

Even if rebellion were justified, it wouldn't occur. Even if it occured, it wouldn't succeed. Those are facts that you have to seriously consider if you're going to talk about taking up arms.

You're dead wrong...and they do matter. I love how you just make a blanket statement like that, then move on to your same argument, which is based upon a false assumption, that I think there will be a "great uprising" of some sort. As I said earlier, I think most will readily give up there freedom for security

You can rebel on your own, and it is the only way I would do it...or at most woth a few very closely trusted companions. (Incidently we three are currently creating a "compound" as we speak... ;) complete with our own church, guess that really makes me a "nut" doesn't it?)


Quote:
Several have said they would rather live under adverse conditions

No one has said that. Just because we recognize the futility of armed rebellion doesn't mean we're expressing a preference.

There you go using that word rebellion again...I haven't advocated rebellion, I have advocated armed insurrection, IIRC. And I'm not being pedantic... Therefor your arguments about failed rebellion are non sequitur.

And once again you failed to answer any of my real questions, instead trying to deflect them with your ad hominum responses.

And again, you keep referring to this discussion as though I'm ready to give up now. That has been your assumption all along, but I have said WHEN the time comes. We still have options, but sadly they are running out or being ignored by out elected servants and the High Court.

But sooner or later, these bozos will step over the line that someone has drawn in the sand and someone will respond with force (quite posssibly the people in Kelo or Keto or where ever).

I would see it like this, and I know you'll have a field day tearing this apart, but what the heck...

Some goon decides he has the power to (fill in the blank). Someone decides they have had enough and that goon dissapears never to be heard from again. The internet bloggers (who needs the main stream socialistic press when you have the internet and bloggers?) are tipped off and run with the story. Soon, across the country, goons of all levels begin to quietly dissaper or turn up, ummmmmm......NONTHRAA. More internet blogging, and eventually the main stream press will have to cover it, for no other reason than to paint the "terrorists" in their correct light. Suddenly goons across the country begin to realize they no longer "have the power" and resume their normal duties as ELECTED SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE!

Pure fantasy I know, but armed rebellion it aint.

cuchulainn
June 30, 2005, 06:11 PM
I haven't advocated rebellion, I have advocated armed insurrection There is no difference. :rolleyes:


Pure fantasy I know, but armed rebellion it aint. It's also not "insurrection." It's assassination and kidnapping.

You're now advocating assassination and kidnapping. You get upset when I say you're advocationg rebellion/revolution, but then you turn around and advocate assassination and kidnapping. As if that's better


You're dead wrong...and they do matter. No, your and my respective willingness to rise up don't matter to the questions at hand: A) would Americans rise up (insurrection :rolleyes: ) and B) would they succeed.

They may matter elswhere, but they don't matter to the questions at hand.


And once again you failed to answer any of my real questions, Name one question that I failed to answer.


I love how you just make a blanket statement like that I didn't make a blanket statement. I pointed out two facts you needed to face about rebellion (er insurrection :rolleyes: )

A) Won't occur in America.
B) Won't succeed.


I would see it like this, and I know you'll have a field day tearing this apart, but what the heck... Field day? No. I'll just point out again that you're advocating assassination and kidnapping.

thereisnospoon
June 30, 2005, 06:39 PM
Nice try, but I don't buy it. One minute exact words matter, the next they don't. (What was that big word you used... pendatic or pedantic or something?) The words do matter.

What words would you use to describe using guns to fight the government?

You claim to be willing to fight, but balk at those words. Wow. Yep, I'm even more confident that you wouldn't do it despite your lip service.

I'm not disturbed by your words, I'm disturbed by the way you try to deflect honest debate by putting words in my mouth and pretending I said one thing when I said another,how dishonest of you.:fire:


Now then, you say my points don't pertain to the matter at hand, but alas, the original question was..." Why haven't you taken up arms against your oppresors?" You have continued to try to turn this into a debate about armed rebellion, which you seem to only define as mass uprising, while I have continued to talk about insurrection, as I have defined it and have given many examples thereof.

You answered the original posters question early on when you said you would never pick up a gun against the .gov, because it was doomed to fail, but you have not answered my question...

If all else fails and all measures of diplomacy, voting, letter writing, cajoling, etc. have been exhausted, and they finally come for you because you are/have/do/ (fill in the blank with the latest disallowed action/right) would you rather fight or leave a shattered Republic for your children.

Its rhetorical at best...you have already divulged that you do not have the will :(

Of course, as I said earlier, you'll say its because you know its doomed to failure and you'd rather live enslaved than die fighting for the romantic notion of freedom. Ce la Vie`

cuchulainn
June 30, 2005, 06:57 PM
while I have continued to talk about insurrectionActually, you attempted to insert that equivocation at post #82. You are being deliberately dishonest in saying that all along you were merely talking about small-scale clashes.

In any event. This thread is done. Why?

1) We're merely talking about who said what.

2) You are being dishonest.

3) I don't feel like disabusing you of your absurd notion that the purpose of the 2nd is to facilitate assassination and kidnapping.

bye-bye.

thereisnospoon
June 30, 2005, 07:05 PM
You still didn't answer my question... :neener:


You know a very wise man once told me I should never try to teach a pig to sing, it annoys the pig and gets you dirty.

I fear in this thread we have merely got dirty. I have a tremendous amount of respect for your opinion, even though I don't agree with it, and I hope we meet again.

Spoon

walking arsenal
June 30, 2005, 09:55 PM
wow, this is getting old fast. why dont you two agree to disagree OR go have a nice old fashion duel someplace and let the rest of us continue the thread while you settle this mano-o-mano?

ravinraven
June 30, 2005, 11:57 PM
...there's the old thing about dying on your feet or living on your knees. That is a condum....er, sorry conundrum.

later, in my mind phart thread I'll jabber about my idea for "liberty committtees." Gotta give it another read before posting. It'll be up in about two hours.

I still want to have a peaceful reboot. But you get instant peace through surrender.

Unfortunately, all ideas lead to conflict. That's why sheep are so peaceful. No ideas. Well, two ideas--eating and that other thing with the she sheeps.

rr

Jacobus Rex
July 1, 2005, 12:30 AM
We are a nation of laws and a civilized people. We are somewhat frayed around the edges and often imperfect but never the less, our society and government are based on order and the rule of law. It is always possible to point to examples of injustice and laws that are unconstitutional. This has always been the case. America’s history is full of such examples. You may cite the American Indians, slavery, women’s rights, racially discriminatory laws, or any other number of past (or present) problems with our democracy. The fact is that while those problems are real, they have never invalidated our constitution or our way of life. We have no current problems that compare to some issues and situations that have existed in this nation’s past.

I agree that the recent court decisions such as the anti-property rights’ ruling or some recent laws are a travesty. However, armed response to real or imaginary violations of our rights in a functional republic would reduce the participants to little more than animals. Persons that react in such a manner are the exact type of person that we often discuss defending ourselves against. I suppose that some people that advocate armed response to the government would think that John Hinckley was just exercising his rights or that the Oklahoma City bombers were freedom fighters. That line of thinking brought us both the KKK and the Black Panthers. Let us not forget that Islamic terrorism is based on the concept of imposing your will by force.

Democracy can’t function without respect for the election process. Any two-bit third world dictator with a few gunmen can try to over turn the results of a democratic election. Our nation cannot survive if our people develop such an attitude.

I felt that the entire 8 years of the Bill Clinton presidency was a low point in our history. The fact is that at no point during his presidency was he NOT our (and my) president. I disagreed with everything that man stood for but his presidency was the result of two elections by the American people. The Bill Clinton era has now pasted into history and our nation remains.

The American people have survived many real trials and tribulations in our past. Our end will most likely come from our own self-destruction rather than an external enemy. I’m not trying to argue that there is never a time for hosting the black flag or that we should ignore all the actions of our government and follow like sheep to the slaughter. However, our vigilance lies at the ballot box not the bullet box. There are limits to what we should put up with but these limits are of an extreme nature and we have never even come close to crossing that line in this nation. I have often thought most Americans that develop such attitudes have never seen how much of the rest of the world really lives.

In conclusion, I’d like to add that support for armed response to our government only undermines our constitutional rights. Radicals with guns only make the masses of swing voters in the middle nervous. Nervous voters are always willing to sacrifice a little freedom for safety or comfort. The Second Amendment was intended as a check and balance or as a last resort in the case that an American doomsday ever did arrive. It was never meant to be a means of national suicide.

RevDisk
July 1, 2005, 01:11 AM
The American people have survived many real trials and tribulations in our past. Our end will most likely come from our own self-destruction rather than an external enemy. I’m not trying to argue that there is never a time for hosting the black flag or that we should ignore all the actions of our government and follow like sheep to the slaughter. However, our vigilance lies at the ballot box not the bullet box. There are limits to what we should put up with but these limits are of an extreme nature and we have never even come close to crossing that line in this nation. I have often thought most Americans that develop such attitudes have never seen how much of the rest of the world really lives.

A buddy of mine commented on our electorial process. He likened it to playing a game of cards against someone who has already marked the deck and you KNOW it's marked, and then complaining when you lose. Can't say I completely agree, but enough that I recognize the fundimental truth in his words.

thereisnospoon
July 1, 2005, 02:26 AM
Sorry if me and chuc hijacked the thread to fight our little battle, I did enjoy it though. :uhoh:

J Rex,

Your post is very thought provoking and actually very well articulated, but I believe the original post was a question about why we haven't yet resorted to the bullet box. Is it time? I don't think so, not yet. Will it ever come to that? I for one, believe it will.

Some people can not fathom a time or place where the need for the bullet box would arise, however, I think them old fellows who wrote our Constitution were pretty smart, and they put it in there for a reason. If the 2A isn't about using force or the threat thereof to keep a government from becoming tyrannical, then all the liberal antis must be right, it must be about the National Guard or hunting.

We can't have it both ways.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Ultimate Conundrum" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!