The SECOND Revolution...


PDA

SteyrAUG
January 25, 2003, 05:09 PM
An older post of mine from another forum but new here.



OK, I know the general consensus among patriotic, freedom loving, constitutional gun owners is that we stand ready to feed the gun grabbers and other "domestic" enemies to the hogs.

Gun boards (especially those with a "militia" edge)are ripe with Phase ONE (Expose the Bildeburgs, etc.) plans of the coming revolution that will wipe out socialism and restore consitutional representation to "the people."

The logic being once the "citizenry" is made aware of the diabolical plot and awakened we will "throw the bums out" and restore a truly representative government in Phase TWO. After all we have at least 750 men with SKSs waiting for the "marching orders." And once these fine Americans fire the "first shot heard round the county" everyone will jump on the bandwagon and join the winnning team.

Just a couple problems.

1. The populace has already been enlightened to the problem and they just don't give a damn. Seriously, Bill Clinton openly wiped his *** with the Consitution on a regular basis and the average Oprah viewer thinks he's some kind of hero. Hillary commited felony (and probably capital) crimes and was duly elected Senator. I firmly believe you could publish photos of the Clintons having 3 way sex with Janet Reno while negotiating the sale of NORAD systems to China while Osama Bin Laden films the decadence and 54% of the country would still vote for them. Just remember Marion Barry got RE ELECTED if you were about to say it would NEVER Happen.

2. The average "gun owner" doesn't even know what is legal anymore or what laws have been passed until AFTER he has been arrested for an illegally configured firearm. He ain't exactly in touch with anything let alone waiting for "marching orders." At best the MOST any gun owner will do is occassionaly spend $25.00 on a NRA membership every couple of years to help fight the good fight. But don't ask him to be a annual member every year or give anything extra. After all $25.00 is a lot of money. You can get a gun "transfered" for $25.00.

3. As soon as the 37 members of the various militias "open fire" when the timing is right, they will be immediately portrayed as extremist fringe groups and tied to white supremecists, doomsday cults, Mormons, stanists and NAMBLA. NAMBLA will sue for defamation and win. When these patriots are rounded up and sentenced to life for "crimes against the Consitution" the nation will breath a collective sigh of relief. After all these 37 rednecks with pump action shotguns are certainly the GREATEST threat to national security that has ever been faced.

4. Mr. average gun owner will watch it all on TV from the comforts of his lazy boy in his air conditioned living room on a SONY Big Screen. He will think to himself that gun owners like that give him a bad name. He will feel safe that he owns a pump action shotgun in case he ever needs to defend himself from such terrorists. He has no idea that Congress is currently in a closed door session drafting legislation to outlaw the NEW weapon of choice for terrorists, the Pump Action Assault Shotgun.

*Editted for language and consumption at the High Road.

If you enjoyed reading about "The SECOND Revolution..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
80fl
January 25, 2003, 05:55 PM
Unfortunately Mr. Aug, I'm afraid you're correct.

The complacency in this country is overwhelming, complacency that starts at the bottom and goes to the top.

If Joe average, living on the outskirts of Cincinnati, wants to put up a garage and is turned down by the local pullet bureau, he shrugs his shoulders and says "oh well".

If Harry the Hunter, living in San Diego, turns on his local new wank and hears that the Masters of State have just outlawed "assault weapons", he shrugs his shoulders and says;
"Whatever, I only like my hunting rifles anyway".

When Phil the old car guy, living in upstate NY is told by the local planning and zoning Nazis that he has to put up a fence to screen his cars from the road, he dutifully marches to Home Depot and orders the material.

When over 50% of the American people hear that the Chief Criminal of the United States has just committed perjury, he sluffs it off saying: "they never should have gotten involved in his personal affairs".


The sheep are being conditioned to not really pay attention to the road this ol' cars going down. As long as the car has leather and air conditioning, they really couldn't care less about the destination.


3. As soon as the 37 members of the various militias "open fire" when the timing is right, they will be immediately portrayed as extremist fringe groups

You have most definitely nailed it.
:banghead:

Pward
January 25, 2003, 06:19 PM
Mormons,????

MessedUpMike
January 25, 2003, 06:36 PM
I'm not exactly a thinskinned type person but how the hell do Mormons get lumped in with skinheads, white supremists, extremists, and NAMBLA? Not only does that part of your arguement not make any sense but such irresponsible and stupid allegations simply push any and all middle of the road people to the other side. It would be wise to remember that much like the second amendment the first amendment also require some form of responsibilty when enjoying your rights.

G-Raptor
January 25, 2003, 06:46 PM
Ok, here goes.

IMO, you've underestimated the committed. History clearly shows that "the masses" has never actively participated in anything. They like being lead around by the nose, and they don't care much who is doing the leading.

I can't say this is completely accurate, but as I understand it, during the first revolution only a third of the population supported the revolution, another third supported the British, and the rest didn't care who won. Of the third who favored revolution, only about 10% was actively involved. So in the end, it was a mere 3% of the people who made the different.

If a second revolution should occur, it will be the same. Most people will simple try to stay out of the line of fire and not draw attention to themselves. But there will be a commited few who will make the difference.

What can a few people do? More than most of us care to think about. Two idiots with one rifle and an old car pretty much shut down the DC area for a couple of weeks. The public reaction might have been a lot different if those guys had shown more descretion in their target selection. ;)

On the other end, 19 guys destroyed several major buildings in our financial center and pretty much brought the entire country to a halt for a couple of days. As a result they are now strip searching grannies and checking the tiny sneakers of toddlers at the airports. Even the sheep are starting to understand that this is more a sign of government ineffectiveness and control than "enhanced security".

People don't revolt when they feel "inconvenienced". They revolt when they feel threatened. Currently, Americans, even the committed few, don't feel threatened to that degree - at least not by the government. They they still see "the political process" as a way out. When they no longer see that as an option, the view will change. Of course, there are already some out on the edge who are itching to start a fight, but it's not a fight that many would care to join in.

The problem isn't winning the fight, its identifying and supporting the leadership that reorganize things when the fight is over. During the first revolution, the leaders were out in front. They put their lives and their fortunes on the line just by signing the declaration. Currently, there are very few in the national leadership who can garner such support.

It would be foolish to underestimate what a small group of committed people can accomplish, I'm sure the government doesn't.

SteyrAUG
January 25, 2003, 06:57 PM
Mormons,????



When I wrote that I was giving Scientologist the week off.

oldfart
January 25, 2003, 07:32 PM
Recently, I had the opportunity to speak with a man who had, at one time, been fairly active in politics in the state of Wisconsin. He pointed out that the entire Republican party of the state was esentially run by less than 300 people. They were the leaders and dedicated followers who actually did the work.
Any 'next revolution' would operate in much the same way, except the leaders would have to live underground or risk arrest_and imprisonment at the best and death as the more probable end. The founders had the advantage of 6000 miles of water between them and their King. Our erstwhile leaders wouldn't have that cushion and would be in constant danger.
On top of all that, our own footsoldiers are hardly prepared for what would be neccesary. The general populace has been indoctrinated to inform the authorities whenever they see anything suspicious. That might mean that any who did inform on a 'patriot' would have to be sanctioned. How many of us is prepared to coldly shoot our neighbors? Not many, I would think, but such measures might be required to maintain security.
Whether it is revolution, civil war or insurrection, any war within a society is particularly brutal and the hard feelings will continue long after the bullets stop_flying. Even now, after nearly 140 years, there are those who harbor strong feelings regarding our own civil war. I doubt things would get better after a next one.
I have often said that a war will come to us sooner or later. All governments and all civilizations fall eventually and the more entrenched the government or civilization, the harder the fall. Ours is not immune and when it does go, it will make the French Revolution look like a garden party.

Travis McGee
January 25, 2003, 07:45 PM
You really need to check out the novel I am almost finished and getting ready to print, it hits most of the subject that you raise.

A power mad JBT senior official engineers a super Columbine, an "assault rifle" massacre in a a packed football stadium. Only about fifty are hit by bulets, but over a thousand die in the panic stampede to escape, tumbling from an upper deck. The blamed sniper is a patsy, he's called a right wing militia gun fanatic, and he is killed in his sniper's lair by a responding police SWAT sniper in a helicopter, as planned.

A week later all semi auto rifles are banned by an act of congress, and the low level dirty war begins, as many gun owners refuse to believe the stadium massacre was not a set up, and refuse to turn in their semi auto rifles.

You can read the first half of the novel here: http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/

Bob Locke
January 25, 2003, 10:30 PM
The 2nd (real American) Revolution already occurred. Just so happened that the bad guys (the North) won.

And I never give up hope, because I am well aware of what a relative handful of really committed individuals have been able to bring about over the course of history.

Oleg Volk
January 25, 2003, 10:58 PM
We have an easier task than a full-fledged revolution. We arent trying to gain control but rather to deny control over us to others. Non-cooperation would go a long way, coupled with basic arms to protect the non-cooperative folks from coersion. Rifles aren't the solution, though they protect the solutions in the interum period.

However, for those inclined to feel sorry for themselves, here's something more melodramatic:
Five stalward patriots I called when fight got close to hand
As one they've answered my call and this is what they said

I'd love to help you, old chap, said one of them to me
But I can't go into battle: too busy raising kids

Another listened to the rain, oiled his gun and sighed
We better wait before we start, my fancy rifle might rust

A dandy told me to relax, it wasn't time for war
We'd know the day to blaze away when Feds at the door

Black rifles suck, another said, a pro at games of clays
My double's safe because it's tame, and that is all I care

We cannot win, somebody cried, the effort's all in vain
And if we go against the Man we'll all be shortly dead

Don't gloat poxy JBTs, and don't you feel safe
I may be alone in my private war but one is all it takes

One with a rifle where you'd least expect, your own unpaid Charon
By the time you hear the bullet's crack, you'll be already gone

The prize is too dear to let you have
We will fight never minding the cost

For the freedom for us, generations to come
For the right to be left alone

bad_dad_brad
January 25, 2003, 11:27 PM
My THR brothers and sisters, do you know what the term "collective oligarchy" describes? It means government by the few. That is what America, indeed, the western world, is migrating to. It sucks, but you can't do a thing about it.

Unlike O'Brien's Oceania oligarchy in the George Orwell's masterpiece "1984", our rulers have determined the best way to control the populace is not to make them suffer, but instead, make them comfortable and complacent. We live in a benign velvet prison.

If you have a full belly, are warm, and think you are safe, why would you revolt?

All revolutions have their roots in suffering and struggle. There is no such thing as an intellectual revolution.

The only free man is one who is ignored by the system. So lay low.

MountainPeak
January 26, 2003, 12:07 AM
SteyrAug, I thought your post was very thought provoking. I had not read it before. As much as I hate to admit it, I agree with many of your conclusions as to reactions by the "people". I have been very concerned as I watch civil liberties disappear after 9/11. Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform etc. were to quickly enacted and, in my opinion, not well thought out. Good post! I have to add my two cents on the mormon comment though. I'm not one, but think it would be hard to lump them in with the rest of your examples. It just didn't fit your well thought out post.

Gordon
January 26, 2003, 12:08 AM
Oleg: I copied your poem 50 times and will post it for my shooting buddies, of course that's what they heard me say for 10 years. I do believe Steyraug was closer to the truth than all the JBS guys I heard, apathy is always the enemies best weapon. Regarding Mormons: American govt. has historically viewed them as crazy and reluctantly leaves them alone if they dont practice polygamy.I think this was used as a metaphor for a scapegoat cult to blame for social unrest no slur intended, I hope!

SteyrAUG
January 26, 2003, 12:18 AM
MountainPeak, and others.

Since I am new here you should know that I am prone to sarcasm and satire. My poke at Mormons was a combination of both. While I personally find most of the Mormon religion absurd (Golden plates and whatnot), those who subscribe to that faith are usually very good people.

In truth I never met a Mormon who wasn't anything less than a nice guy. If you are nicer than a Mormon you are probably on Prozac.

My personal view on Mormonism is similar to that of all religions. Protected by the First Amendment. Since I have on more than one occassion taken the "oath" I will always defend the right of a person to believe whatever religion they may choose whether it be Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology, Islam or the Tooth Fairy.

This however is no guarantee that I will subscribe to those beliefs or even respect them. And that is my right.

MountainPeak
January 26, 2003, 12:24 AM
SteyrAug, I wasn't questioning your right to write or post anything! I just felt it didn't fit what I thought was a great piece of writing by you! Peace.:)

SteyrAUG
January 26, 2003, 12:27 AM
No need to worry. I was just explaining myself. No offence taken or offered. ;)

2nd Amendment
January 26, 2003, 12:30 AM
I've always maintained that another revolution is a definite future occurrence. To think that any nation can exist indefinitely, let alone indefinitely without the occasional violent upheaval, is absurd. It's just a question of when and why.

That being said I think it's likely to be a rather sad thing. I just don't think the numbers exist at this point to get the job done, in any fashion. Bigger government and more control is the road we are on. An eventual global government is the future. It's just the natural evolution of government, and technology will allow it to happen and happen effectively.

I'm almost regretting raising my children to be independent thinkers reasonably free of TV and the latest fads. While I'll probably never live to see the day I wonder how they will fit in to the micro-managing of the future. Maybe I'm simply creating eternally unhappy and dissatisfied adults...Better for them to have spent their lives asleep? :confused:

SteyrAUG
January 26, 2003, 12:43 AM
Maybe I'm simply creating eternally unhappy and dissatisfied adults...Better for them to have spent their lives asleep?

http://www.dropbears.com/b/broughsbooks/people/teddy.jpg

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.

More wisdom from the master:

http://www.dropbears.com/b/broughsbooks/qtroosevelt.htm

Porter Rockwell
January 26, 2003, 01:02 AM
Thanks all the reading, I can imagine this topic and discussion scares the devil out of many members. I've met a good many people who are afraid to surf the net much less post on gun boards.
Big Brother is always watching and at the same time busy indoctunating your own children in the schools, in print and in all the media and movies the new religion of Consumerism/Communism
I fully expect a new reality TV series "Narc Yer Neighbor" in the not distant future.
The plot is like Candid Camera, the cameras arrive along with a team of JBT to the unsuspecting homeowner and is rewarded instantly with huge sums of cash for reporting one of her neighbors of being somehow suspicous...."Well Doug" she says, "that guy/gal three doors down sometimes wears CAMO and shoots those black guns alot"
What's your library like? Any thing Big Brother might "spin" into terrorist literature? Shot Gun News was mentioned as a radical publication back in the Waco Trials..

beemerb
January 26, 2003, 02:15 AM
A few can start it and goverment overreaction can fuel it.When the Germans invaded Russia in WW 2 many Russians sided with the Germans due to the harsh treatment by there own goverment.The action of a few dedicated communists cause a over reaction by the Germans.After a number of Russian villages where wiped out the reaction of the Russian peasents created havoc behind German lines.More German solders where used to guard rear areas then where on the front.
I think the same thing could happen here.A couple of Wacos could fuel a lot of public response and the fence stratlers would join the fight. Allso bringing in UN troops would have the same effect.
Bob

G-Raptor
January 26, 2003, 02:40 AM
I beg to differ with Bob on the civil war.

It wasn't a revolution, it was a war between groups of allied nations. Southerners did not rebel against "their" government, they separated themselves from the northern states and fought a war against "foreigners". Southern soldiers and officials didn't much worry about being shot by other southerners.

That brings me to another point about "the revolution". When people actually want to talk about this subject, there always seems to be an underlying assumption of "full military compliance". Why should anybody believe that 2 million American soldiers and 600,000 American cops are going to swear an oath to the Constitution, salute the flag, then start an all out assault on American citizens? It's easier to believe that many of them will simply switch sides.

It's pretty hard for soldiers to desert when they're stuck in a steamy hellhole 10,000 miles from anywhere. But when some kid from Chicago is patrolling the streets of Indianapolis and the locals are shooting at him, it's pretty easy to dump his uniform in a gas station bathroom and catch a ride home.

Cosmoline
January 26, 2003, 02:59 AM
This is question I always ask when talk about "revolution" arises. I dislike things like the high-cap ban and the "assault weapons" ban. Frankly, I dislike the federales for the most part. But when you start looking around, there really isn't any coherent revolutionary movement at all in this country. There are divergent clusters of people angry about one thing or another. From what I've seen of the hardcore so-called "militia" groups, the "freemen," and the "common law courts" and similar organizations that have come and gone, the far right offers nothing more than comic relief.

So what's the alternative to our current system? Talk of "Restoring the Constitution" is all well and good, but your idea of a restored Constitution and my idea of a restored Constitution may be VERY different.

jar
January 26, 2003, 11:31 AM
IMHO, we will see the dissolution of the US within my lifetime, in fact, most likely within the nest 20 years. And, I expect it to be non-violent and generally supported.

I expect that we will see a [i]Pacifica[i] that includes most of the west coast, Alask, Hiwaii and parts of South and Central America. It will be Chinese in still, culture and orientation.

I expect to see a Hispania that will include most of the Gulf States, Texas north to around Austin, Arizona, New Mexico and Southern California north to near LA.

The East Coast and swinging west to past Chicago will most liklely still be called the US but it will not resemble anything like the US today. It will be small enclaves of the very rich, a slightly large body of well paid knowledge workers and vast masses of the very poor. In many ways it will resemble a third world country more than the Jeffersonian Ideal.

In mid America there will be two competing powers, one most likely centered around Idaho, the other centered around Austin TX. These two power centers will be in a state of virtual war constantly as they vie for domination of the other.

What will bring this about?

IMHO it will be driven by two main and one secondary forces.

The first is overpopulation in Asia and Central America. They will both have to increase (I say increase because IMHO it is already happening) State Sponsored exportation of their surplus population. I sincerely belive that Mexico and China have already held talks about their respective spheres of influence. These immigrants will be unlike the waves of immigration a hundred years ago. These people will still hold the POV of their native land as opposed to those fleeing Europe a century ago.

The second major factor driving this cultural split will be Big Business. Today's multinational companies do not hold a primary Allegiance to the US. Witness NAFTA and Chrysler as examples. Today's Big Business sees Nation States only as a Hindrance, something that passes laws that make business less profitable. For BUSINESS, getting rid of Nation States and the environmental, labor and safety laws that go with Nation States just makes good sense.

The minor driver for all of this will be the apathy of the public that will choose seperation as the lessor of evils.

Mad Man
January 26, 2003, 11:36 AM
Does anyone know the publishing status of Enemy Within: A Novel of the Next Civil War (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=6U8HY37YPI&isbn=0895262738&itm=16)?

I posted about the book on another thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=68754#post68754), but it's also relevant here.



Unfortunately, publication of this (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=6U8HY37YPI&isbn=0895262738&itm=16) was cancelled after I placed my order. Weinberger (former Secy. of Defense for President Reagan) and Schweizer wrote The Next War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895264471/qid=1043195984/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0524903-3134239?v=glance&s=books) a few years before this.


Enemy within: A Novel of the Next Civil War

Caspar Weinberger (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?userid=67ERM9WOCM&mscssid=7K69K9K395S92NGE0017QUW4X36EE42A&author_last=Weinberger&author_first=Caspar&match=exact&options=and) Peter Schweizer (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?userid=67ERM9WOCM&mscssid=7K69K9K395S92NGE0017QUW4X36EE42A&author_last=Schweizer&author_first=Peter&match=exact&options=and)

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=77281

bn.com Price: $27.95
Available: Ships 1-2 weeks
Format: Hardcover, 380pp.
ISBN: 0895262738
Publisher: Regnery Publishing, Inc. (http://www.regnery.com/), An Eagle Publishing Co.
Pub. Date: November 1999
bn.com sales rank: 586,233


From The Publisher
For more than a century, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, has been the place where the United States prepares its most promising commanders to prepare for the next crisis. Increasingly, they anticipate a domestic role for the military. This year military leaders conducted a hypothetical wargame called Prairie Warrior. The scenario: a rebellion in the continental United States. From this true beginning, best-selling authors Caspar Weinberger and Peter Schweizer spin off the political thriller of the year.

State leaders in Idaho, Montana, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas have launched referenda in 2012 to reject widespread federal authority. When the initiatives pass with narrow majorities, and governors sympathetic to the movement are elected in these states, a constitutional crisis develops. Newly elected President Morgan Boyd must deal with a Union that appears to be dissolving. Sensing the opportunity to make trouble, America's friends and enemies get involved, looking for an opportunity to benefit from the domestic political turmoil and the uncertainty in the armed forces.

This book will not only provide plenty of action, it will also address some profoundly important questions concerning the role of government, and warnings about the apparent trend toward a greater domestic role for the armed forces.


After publication was cancelled a few years ago, I had given up hope of ever reading this.

But after I posted the book description on The High Road, Plainsman (http://www.thehighroad.org/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=1213) contacted the publisher, and got this response:


We dropped the project several years ago. I know another publisher picked it up, but it still hasn't appeared, and frankly I don't know what its current status is.

Regards,

Harry Crocker
Executive Editor


That inspired me to do a little bit more research, and I found this from a web page about Peter Schweizer (http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/bios/schweizer.html):


Peter Schweizer...is currently cowriting a biography on the Bush family, which will be released by Doubleday next year, and a novel with Caspar Weinberger, which will be published in 2003 by Simon and Schuster (http://www.simonsays.com/).


and an outdated page on Amazon for Untitled Thriller (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743442512/qid=1043383763/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/t/103-0524903-3134239?v=glance&s=books).

If anyone has info about Enemy Within (not to be confused with Larry Bond's book of the same title (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=329CUYGKPF&isbn=0446603856&itm=3)), it would greatly be appreciated.

Travis McGee
January 26, 2003, 11:43 AM
Mad Man
What is the status of the project? Was it spiked as too inflammatory?

Is the point of view of the book that knuckle dragging fundamentalist right wing gun nut Constitution fanatics will secede, and will need to be crushed and dragged back into the Union by a new Abe Lincoln with a new Sherman marching through Boise?

I like my novel's premise better, a low-level "dirty war" is a much more likely outcome. Check out the link to "ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC" up the thread, 40% of the novel is posted in "excerpts."

Mad Man
January 26, 2003, 12:01 PM
I'm on chapter 17 of Enemies: Foreign and Domestic (http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/excerpts.htm), and am enjoying it.

However, I think what makes Enemy Within different than your book or Unintended Consequences (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888118040/qid=1043599815/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/103-0524903-3134239?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) is that the "revolution" in Weinberger's and Schwiezer's book has support of democratically elected state leaders (along with the resources they control). And I think that the issues in Enemy Within are going to be more complex than the cliche "they're trying to take our guns."

I know nothing more about the book than what I've posted.

But if I were writing a book about "the next civil war," I would include things like water rights, land use, unfunded mandates, illegal immigration, and/or the war on drugs (including medical marijuana). Things that people other than us "gun nuts" can relate to.

Travis McGee
January 26, 2003, 01:10 PM
Mad Man

I don't think that an "Enemy Within" secession scenario would happen first, out of the blue sky, with elected politicians voting to refuse federal control.

IMHO, there would be other stages before that type of scenario would come to pass, if ever. A low intensity dirty war is much more likely as a preliminary stage, IMO.

My chosen scenario in EFAD, with a crazed power-mad senior FLE official intenionally provoking an armed reaction is just one of many types of "trigger events" which could occur, but they would all lead first through a semi covert dirty war before steps such as regional secession were consdered.

That's my take, and that's how I wrote Enemies Foreign And Domestic.

Cosmoline
January 26, 2003, 01:14 PM
I don't buy the "teeming hordes" theory. IMHO it's part of the old Malthusian notion of parabolic population increase, mixed in with Spengler's baseless "decline of the west" ideology. In reality, China's population has topped off with government controls and India's is topping off without them. Central America and Mexico are far from overflowing with people. Many parts of the US are far more densely populated. Indeed, there are large swaths of territory south of the border that are rural and sparsely populated. The problems there have to do with stagnant economies, not excess population. Africa is, if anything, seriously underpopulated in many areas. With the new wave of disease and political unrest, that's not going to change.

As far as the West falling apart, this is flat-out absurd. Western civlization, led by the US, is the most powerful force on the planet. Indeed, it's the most powerful force in world history. No other civilization has been able to spread its influence so far and so deep. You can go to remote Papua New Guinea and find natives trading Supertramp tee-shirts for pigs. For all the anti-US/anti-globalization blather, this has not changed and will not change.

This theory about China teaming up with Central America is Gnomes of Zurich stuff. The Chinese need to be watched carefully, of course. But they are still Chinese. For thousands of years they have made it their business to set up businesses all over the world. Little pockets of China. They don't do this to take over the world, they do it to make $$$$. Indeed, by staying insular and distrustful of foreigners, they GUARANTEE they won't take over didly squat. I'll worry more about them when and if they ever build a serious blue-water navy.

PATH
January 26, 2003, 01:35 PM
I may disagree with the government but that is why we have elections.

My first duty is the defense of the Constitution of the United States of America. Barring an outright usurping of the Constitution I personally would take up arms against any who would attempt to destroy the Union.

Violence is the last resort and not the first. In the end the government cannot long govern without the consent of the governed. Usurping the Constitution would start a protracted low level dirty war.

Should the government suspend the Constitution then I would hold my life forfeit as they would have to take my life. It may sound cliche but they can take your life but they can't take your freedom unless you let them. Whoever "them" may be. I pray that day never comes.

I am not the bravest of men but sometimes you must take a stand. I hope that I would be courageous enough to follow the dictates of my conscience.

No man knows how he will react until placed in a set of circumstances from which he cannot absent himself.

Tamara
January 26, 2003, 01:44 PM
Why do I hope?

Well, as I sit here typing, my windows are rattling from somebody test-firing a FAL in the back yard of the house next door, here in Suburbia, USA.

Maybe I'll take my Kraggy-Jorgy down and shoot with them; I ain't fired it yet. Haven't shot my HK91 in a month or so, either; better bring it, too.

See y'all. :cool:

PATH
January 26, 2003, 01:47 PM
AMEN!:)

hammer4nc
January 26, 2003, 02:07 PM
Good thoughtful discussion...

The point made about present American society being too comfortable to mount a full scale revolution, is well taken. Ditto the complacency over gradual loss of freedoms. However, the statement...

Western civlization, led by the US, is the most powerful force on the planet.

...doesn't mean its invulnerable to attack. The resource systems that support this comfortable lifestyle are a bit more fragile, IMO, than most would assume, esp. in urban areas. We witnessed how the airline industry was temporarily grounded...wouldn't take too much to cripple water distribution in the southwest, fuel distribution, food distribution to cities, to name just a few.

Outside of terror groups that are the current focus, I can imagine a sub-group of elected officials, business interests, ethnic groups, foreign countries, or a combination of the above, launching a "problem-reaction-solution" type attack (perhaps through surrogates), to advance their agendas.

While the idea of creating Itzlan, or a Chinese colony may be a little hard to swallow, if any motivated group thought they could gain just a little, through forceful action outside the status quo, they might be inclined to give it a whirl.

Getting back to fictional scenarios, one of the points of the UC novel, was that coordinated action caused a redirection of just a few government agencies that were out of control. Not so much "revolution" across the board.

Ian
January 26, 2003, 03:33 PM
Some more interesting speculation on the issue can be found in Carl Bussjaeger's novel "Net Assets." It's based on a company which bypasses NASA and achieves cheap, private space access. He goes on to explore the potential reaction of government (both state and federal) to such a situation.

The book is $5, and is published over the net (no hard-copy printed version) in txt, MS Word, and PDF formats. I really enjoyed it. http://www.netassetsbook.com/

Also, Boston T Party is working on an Unintended-Consequences-esque novel (there is a short exerpt from it in the 2002 edition of Boston's Gun Bible). That should be an interesting read.

St. Gunner
January 26, 2003, 11:01 PM
Steyr,

I think you are right, the year of the first MMM I set out flyers at every gunshop I knew of in San Antonio, made a post to TFL, asking for gun owners to show up at the planning session for the march since it was supposed to be opened to everyone. I set out around 3,000 flyers with a map and all. The only person to show up out of all the flyers and the post was Dennis Bateman, that guy can share my foxhole any day of the week.

You average joe won't lift a finger until they come to his door, kick it down then ask for his $1,000 O/U, then he'll throw a hissy fit and complain about it at some hunting board or another. I refuse to contribute money to the NRA, but I do send donations to some other pro-rights orgs. I try to keep informed via these boards, and I try to incite others to do the same. Most are to worried about who is in the Superbowl, or how the basketball season is going.

I spent Superbowl in the deerstand with a 9yr old girl because getting kids involved in shooting and hunting is the last hope we have. She killed a doe and I am still not sure who whooped louder at the shot. But I bet most shooters haven't taken a kid out and shot with them in years if ever.

One day a bunch of us will end up in some pit filled with other bodies because after years of peaceful resistance, letter writing, and assorted other things and thousands of dollars in pro-freedom contributions they finally come knocking at the door and in order to be able to stand with honor in front of Thomas Jefferson and the other founders we took the last step. I hope the lousy rotten no good lazy dirtbags die of gangerine in their lazyboy since they didn't help out at all. We are involved in a battle where less than 1% us are carrying their weight and sometimes I don't even know if I am carrying enough.



Since Oleg started the poetry another, I wrote for a poetry class in the fall of 2001.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

“Fear is the foundation of most governments”
John Adams 1776

“Liberty Lessons”

The Rain…
Rain the friend of the man in sacks
Welcoming its chill upon his back.
Lying still in now wet weeds,
Waiting to complete his deed.

Lost message…
For years men like him had written and called,
Only to be politically and physically mauled.
Government shot those who complained of the infringements,
Now in the distance lay the start of the resistance.

The podium…
Outlined against distant hills,
Symbolic of burgeoning government bills.
The naïve politician who stripped away rights,
Never fathomed the extent, or degree, of the fight.

Struggle for the message…
He walked up smiling to playing bands,
The rifle moved slowly in steady hands.
He addressed the crowd with lying eyes,
The man waited to make him die.
He talked of a socialist dream,
The bullet carried the constitutional message downstream.

Drop, rivulet, torrent…
Like a drop of rain on a distant peak,
Policies passed down oppressed the meek.
All things you do against man, effect earth,
He alone called out his dearth.

Impact…
The screams heard from the quiet hide,
Why by the constitution can they not abide?
The stream moves on without one political man,
Will other learn the lessons of his sham?

The Patriot…
He crawls off to be alone,
To say a prayer asking to be condoned.
He did not hate the man he killed,
Only the policy he milled.


Steve Moody
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SteyrAUG
January 26, 2003, 11:19 PM
St. Gunner, it's enough to piss ya off ain't it?

Btw, here is what most of my neighbor kids looked like in Iowa.

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QgD8AkoSfT49JgE1dhgK*yPUCwxioiUcy**Tpf9k1IR4m0bueDQULj7CuDQivntZCvf5kA0vX7JdZeeOc69ARr4dEf5b9AskxuVY5raaLqE/0025.JPG

Once I had gotten to know the parents, most kids on my block had a open invitation to got shooting anytime they wanted. Quite a few took me up on it.

The little lady is holding a Benelli M1S90.

St. Gunner
January 27, 2003, 12:18 AM
St. Gunner, it's enough to piss ya off ain't it?

Steyr, That don't even cut it anymore. What really sets me off is knowing that at my current college peope exist who own guns, probably boast about their toughness and such on this very board or others and yet when it comes to the testicle cuttin time in the classroom, they are so brave they keep their mouths shut. When I read the above poem and a couple others along the same lines, it was absolute silence. I wrote another later in the semester about my trigger finger, but wrote it in a way you'd have had to have fired a gun on a cold morning to realize what it was about. Never said a word about a gun or a target, just about breath on the tip of a finger. A couple guys in class knew exactly what it was about and one girl, do you think in any of the verbal attacks I faced because of what I had to say they ever said one word. After class one of the guys started telling me about his Norinco sks and his 30rd mags and how he would fight when the time came, somehow I doubt it. If you can't stand up when the cost is to be chastised and ridiculed, or might cost you a grade, I really expect to see em when the payment is in blood.

My biggest problem is I don't think you have a right to defend your rights with force, if you didn't defend your rights with writing, speech, and money. It's like parking your car on the street in a ghetto with the keys in the ignition then waiting in the shadows to shoot the guy who tries to drive off with it.

St. Gunner, it's enough to piss ya off ain't it?

Maybe just a little bit, i'll turn the rant off now.
:D


By the way, thanks for taking the kiddos out to shoot. I have a neighbor kid who wants to get over here, but his momma keeps telling him he can't. If we are shooting in the afternoon when he gets off the bus he hangs out by the road to watch till she calls him home. My little one is 3, she already shoots with dads help. The girl today is a regular shooter already, she just had never shot a deer. Gonna get her a hog sooner or later to.

Thanks to you other guys that are pulling everyone elses slack to.

Gun rights is starting to feel like a damn welfare state.

SteyrAUG
January 27, 2003, 12:44 AM
Well that is one form of welfare where I don't mind contributing more than my fair share. :D

Travis McGee
January 27, 2003, 02:28 AM
St. Gunner

Beautiful rant, you are very motivational. Keep your freedom flag flying, don't let up because the others let you down, your courage at school is an inspiration to them even if they will not show it all the time. The example of your visible backbone may stiffen their resolve at some time in the future when it matters, in simple debate or in come what may.

HS/LD
January 27, 2003, 03:47 AM
Do you guys really think we could win?


Do you really think if we did have the motivation and the weapons we could actually defeat the feds?

I know my government spent a pretty penny teaching me how to do it. To fight.

But if there was a revolution would we be outgunned?

Even though I know the awesome power that a group of highly trained fighters can have.

I seem to think we would end up looking like the Taliban.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't fight with everything I have....

I've depressed myself....:(
HS/LD

Tamara
January 27, 2003, 07:50 AM
“Ten million high powered 500 yard rifles constitutes the most formidable base for resistance ever seen in history, regardless of the state's high tech weaponry. There is simply no way to put a 500 yard perimeter around every domestic enemy.”
--“Travis McGee”
from FreeRepublic.com

I always liked this line.

Kahr carrier
January 27, 2003, 07:59 AM
:what:

Oleg Volk
January 27, 2003, 09:44 AM
Before you all depress yourselves: our side doesn't, can't advertise our victories or our plans. In 1944 Europe, Germany may well have looked invicible to the locals -- but they were ont he way out. Same for the 1980 USSR -- they were about done but wouldn't admit it. Locals fighting them couldn't advertise lest they be caught and shot.

Same here. A lot of us are doing work which can't be advertised and which might not even be know despite the results it produces. So cheer up and go teach another kid.

St. Gunner
January 27, 2003, 10:01 AM
Do you guys really think we could win?

Does it really truly matter? Our Founders placed us in a position of responsibility, our Lord if you follow him as our Founders for the most part did, instructs us to protect our body and soul, which is the same premise Darwin backed up when he came up with survival of the fittest. In short you can't be an oppressed peasant and be taking care of your body and soul, and you can't be the fittest if you are the tyrants whipping boy. But other than that...

Do you really think if we did have the motivation and the weapons we could actually defeat the feds?

Today all government actions and reactions are based on the public outcry surrounding them. Fear is still the Foundation of most governments as Mr. Adams said, the sad part is we let the fear drop from our actions. If you think a group of motivated people willing to go to war or lead themselves to slaughter over their moral and political ideals won't insitute change you are mistaken. Would civil rights have ever been more than a pipe dream if somebody didn't have the guts to force integration? We watched one whole portion of this country held hostage by a radical in a trunk of a car with a rifle, shooting innocent civilians. People where already willing to pay him off or give whatever they had to give to make him stop. Now imagine a series of situations where the recipient of those shots are politicians and government officials who have been stripping certain segments of their rights and liberties. They aren't asking to have the war on terror stopped, aren't asking to kill all the Jewish children, aren't asking to breed only an Aryan race, all they want is to be left alone from government infringements to practice their civil rights.

This country is weak, the people for the most part can't stomach death of any kind and are willing to capitulate about anything to make it stop. The sad part is if we had kept government properly iin fear as Mr. Adams instructed, these types of discussions would never have to take place. Folks like me would never have to wonder everytime something like this gets written if the FBI is gonna come knocking to ask me some questions about what I wrote. I don't foresee myself lining up a shot on anyone right now, frankly as bad as it is, it isn't that bad yet. What I hope is that freedom vermin like Charles Schumer and Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the bloodsucking parasites like them, read these types of posts and realize how mad a segment of this country is. We've withstood more abuses than any other group I can think of without responding in a violent manner. The NRA never fire bombed The Senate to make a point, GOA never sniped Schumer off the steps of the capitol, JPFO never hung Feinstein with a sign around her neck reading, "Nazi Sympathizer." All in all we have been very civilized for a culture being systematically destroyed one law at a time by a tyrannical system out to create a socialist utopia from our our Republic. Maybe that is part of the trouble, we are to nice, to sincere, to prone to non-violence... Because of all of that, we'll most likely never have a chance of winning, just rotting in a hole on the outskirts of town where they pushed us with a D-6 cat after we attempted to late to defend what it was our duty to hold on to.:(

Selfdfenz
January 27, 2003, 10:30 AM
sobering thread.
I for one have not given up on the ballot yet.

Is it just me or is anyone else in agreement that as long as the voters keep sending lawyers to DC and the state house to do our bidding, our bidding will never get done and government will never turn things around. Just the opposite.

I know there has been a tremendous amount of debate about third part runs (old TFL threads), however, I for one do not believe the "right" third party exists yet. If many of the ideas seen here and on the TFL were crystalized into a platform and that the right spokes-person could be found, I believe people would listen.

1.Both the Dems and Reps are guilty of building bigger and bigger governements and ones that burn more dollars.

2.Neither party seems interested in the decay of civil liberties that appear everyday to be growing unchecked.

Reversing those trends alone are winning planks.

OTOH
How do we assure ourselves that after the "revolt" the new politicos will be better than the ones we just threw out. It would be an extremely sorry state of affairs to replace one group of bureauacrats with something that's different but just as bad, or worse.

S-

ReadyontheRight
January 27, 2003, 11:02 AM
If many of the ideas seen here and on the TFL were crystalized into a platform and that the right spokes-person could be found, I believe people would listen.

I agree.

10 Years ago Ross Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote with a somewhat disjointed message and both a personality AND VP running mate ripe for SNL mockery.

Jesse Ventura was elected Governor of Minnesota on Perot's Reform Party ticket, but infighting in the Reform Party after his win made him leave the party and start his own worthless "Independence" party.

A 3rd party is possible, but needs better organization, a galvanizing message and more than just one central personality. The party would need to follow the Constitution, seek a smaller government and stay out of both our personal lives and our pocketbooks. Such a party, with a charismatic set of leaders, would involve the large % of folks who refuse to vote.

I'm still voting Republican for the forseeable future. My vote for Perot gave us Clinton.

St. Gunner
January 27, 2003, 12:22 PM
I've alway wondered if you ran a pro-gun ticket, said they are going to go to Washington to do nothing but bring up legislation to repeal gun laws, and are going to vote "NO" on any laws that don't deal with guns, if you couldn't swing a huge part of the rest of the country that is fed-up with having to learn new tax laws every year and various other laws and regs that burn up so much time. We could in effect by premise of supporting nothing new, win back some of what we have lost and give Charles Schumer and his clan a heart condition. We have what 80million gun owners and how many on this board wouldn't drag everyone they knew to the polls even if it meant giving up days of work or a weeks work. How many folks voted in the last election? Plus I think if the momentum seemed large enough we'd sway a huge percentage of the Repubs of the old school that believe in smaller government and less taxes.

bogie
January 27, 2003, 12:34 PM
Think of the numbers, folks...

3,000,000 NRA members.

Let's say that 1% of that is the "committed" membership.

That's 30,000 folks who might "go to war." But they're mostly 40+ years old, etc...

Now say that 1% of that group are the "ultracommitted" or "starters."

That's 300. Unfortunately more than a few of these folks make even me nervous...

That's a larger group than the active IRA.

If two religous fanatics can essentially shut down a major metro area for two weeks, imagine what would happen with 300 independently operating folks around the country.

Travis McGee
January 27, 2003, 04:24 PM
TAMARA

Hi! Well that "Travis McGee" paraphrase about the ten million deer rifle army pretty well sums up the operating idea behind "Enemies Foreign And Domestic".

In the book it's quite shocking to the domestic enemies when they begin to be plinked from long range.

And they had thought the "assault rifles" were the dangerous ones! They never even considered Grampa's .270!

Cosmoline
January 27, 2003, 05:03 PM
All the tough talk is fine. The real question is, WHO ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO SHOOT??

The answer, of course, is NOBODY.

Porter Glockwell
January 27, 2003, 05:08 PM
yeah you had better watch out for those gunowning militant Mormons...


http://www.angelfire.com/ut2/zionscamp/

http://pub36.ezboard.com/bzionscamp

LOL

Porter

MORMON LABE

St. Gunner
January 27, 2003, 05:16 PM
Abigale Adams to Samuel Adams in late 1775:

"Look Sam I know you are just kidding about shooting people and this whole deal about making King George fear us is just tough talk and all, but could you calm down a little, I think ol Ben Franklin just had an accident in his trousers. If it isn't Thomas Paine instigating the people and making them horde extra musket balls, it's Jefferson scaring the kids with his talk of the coming war, or you standing up and giving speeches on the positive aspects of independance."

Sam to Abigale:"Your right dear we are all blowing hot air, oppresion, tyranny, and taxation without representation isn't really all that bad, it's not like they are attempting to take all our guns, infringe on our personal privacy, or put taps on our phones without warrants. We'll just quit being so glum and head on down to the karoke bar toss back a few Sam Adams and let some little 20yr old girl tell me how cute my white hair is.":rolleyes:

Cosmoline,

I know exactly where I would start if the time came...
:eek:

SteyrAUG
January 27, 2003, 05:19 PM
Porter Glockwell, I hope I'm not keeping you up at night with my Mormon jab. :D

You guys are still way more credible than Scientology or those Hale Bop guys. :neener:

Strings
January 27, 2003, 05:34 PM
... on one board or another, a story that a Navy LT had given a survey to Marines at 29 Palms. One of the questions was something to the effect of "If firearms were outlawed, would you be willing to act as federal agents in collecting them and jailing violators?". The fairly overwhelming response was "no", to the tune of the Corps becoming "combat ineffective" if such were attempted...

I've asked MANY members of our armed services what their opinion would be on this, and it ranges from "I simply wouldn't do it" to " I'd have to desert and join the militia". Very few would actually follow orders...

So I tend to agree with the "dirty little war" concept. Yes, there could be military agents siding with the grabbers, but there would also be soldiers siding with us. And we'd probably have a fair share of cops with us to.

goon
January 27, 2003, 06:31 PM
Do you guys really think we could win?


"Do you really think if we did have the motivation and the weapons we could actually defeat the feds?
I know my government spent a pretty penny teaching me how to do it. To fight.
But if there was a revolution would we be outgunned?
Even though I know the awesome power that a group of highly trained fighters can have.
I seem to think we would end up looking like the Taliban.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't fight with everything I have....
I've depressed myself....
HS/LD"

Imagine fighting an invisible Army that wears no uniform, that look and talk just like you, and that can attack anywhere at any time.
Hell, the people in your Army may even be in that Army.
How could you possibly win against a force that you couldn't even identify?

The only problem is that we are overwhelmingly peaceful people.
Face it boys, we are just too civlilized for our own good.
Because of that, I doubt that there would be any mass uprising.

2nd Amendment
January 27, 2003, 06:35 PM
I don't see a lot of tough talk, Cosmoline. I see a lot of thoughtful discussion. Maybe you should give it a try.

Porter Glockwell
January 27, 2003, 07:00 PM
no worries AUG... joke well taken, just don't lump us together with NAMBLA next time...


Porter

Frohickey
January 27, 2003, 07:31 PM
I've always maintained that another revolution is a definite future occurrence. To think that any nation can exist indefinitely, let alone indefinitely without the occasional violent upheaval, is absurd. It's just a question of when and why.

I don't think a revolution is a definite future occurrence, as a part of any nation.

What is sure is that a revolution is guarranteed when you have a concentration of power. This could be when the Federal government gathers more and more power from the people it professes to represent. Since rights and powers come from the people, all of that concentration of power in government is taken from the people themselves. This is when you have revolutions, when enough people are sick and tired of a far-away government meddling into their daily lives.

Switzerland had been around for 700+ years, though recently, it has decided to join the United Nations. This was a federation of cantons/provinces, where most of the power is located at. This is the best type of government to have. Power is at the local level, where its closest to the people. This is what the Constitution was supposed to have been about.

Frohickey
January 27, 2003, 07:45 PM
I think the same thing could happen here.A couple of Wacos could fuel a lot of public response and the fence stratlers would join the fight. Allso bringing in UN troops would have the same effect

I can see it now. The new cry of the revolution...

THE BLUE HELMETS ARE COMING!!!

Travis McGee
January 27, 2003, 11:03 PM
GOON,

"Imagine fighting an invisible Army that wears no uniform, that look and talk just like you, and that can attack anywhere at any time.
Hell, the people in your Army may even be in that Army."

Exactly. Imagine trying to find out who fired that deadly shot, when there are ten million scoped deer rifles floating aroung!

oldfart
January 27, 2003, 11:29 PM
I don't know if the blue helmets are coming right away, but I just read on another site that 2600 German soldiers are being brought to the U.S. to guard our military bases while our guys are in the Middle East. Doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

wQuay
January 27, 2003, 11:47 PM
How credible is that site, oldfart? I think MSNBC mentioned NATO AWACS patrolling US airspace after 9/11, so it wouldn't be too surprising, but still...

Sam Adams
January 28, 2003, 05:30 PM
Hello to all of my fellow former-TFL'ers. I finally got off my lazy butt and registered here, and after lurking a bit it looks like we're all going to be right at home on THR.
__________________
Regarding this thread, I'd like to thank Steyr Aug for raising this issue, though I disagree somewhat with the conclusion reached. It is always good to let the government types know that the proles are thinking about (and possibly acquiring) the mechanics of throwing off their chains. Keeping would-be tyrants in fear of the populace is an old and honored tradition, one that all of the Founding Fathers would support if they were still with us. I also want to compliment Travis McGee, St. Gunner and Bogie for their comments, with no slight intended toward others not mentioned. My usual disclaimer applies: I have not and don't support, advocate or condone violent revolution, or illegal violent actions against any government within the United States, or any such actions against any official, agent or employee of any such government. That being said (for the benefit of you JBT lurkers), I DO like to think about it and discuss it with others. My thoughts are as follows:

1) The fedgov is assuming more and more power every year, regardless of which party controls the White House, either or both houses of Congress, or whether the SC is considered "activist" (i.e. in violation of the Constitution) or is merely not-so-activist. Our federal tax burden alone is horrendous, and certainly won't improve markedly in the next few years (tax cuts in one area will be offset by increases or "user fees" elsewhere). Laws passed recently in an effort to combat "terrorism" may and may not actually do so, but they surely trample on many of our rights and lay the legal (though unconstitutional) foundations for a police state, should a would-be dictator or oligarchy want to make the attempt to impose one in the future.

2) State and local governments are not too far behind, principally in the area of property rights and the police state tactics employed in the WOD (agree or disagree with legalizing drugs, any well-informed person must agree that the powers used are excessive). Local taxes, esp. property taxes, are out of control.

3) There are something like 80 million gun owners, with the ranks probably swelling by 2 million or so each year. More laws are passed each year that burden innocent gunowners, even to the extent of ex post facto laws depriving citizens of the RKBA for minor misdemeanors committed 30 or more years earlier, and a law that denies any 2nd Amendment rights to someone subjected to a routine temporary restraining order. Even without new laws and regulations, government officials and various media outlets routinely demonize armed people that have done nothing wrong.

4) Something has to break somewhere.

I don't know what, or when, the triggering incident for a rebellion of some kind will be. Travis has it being an out-of-control BATF supervisor, which is at least quite plausible (esp. if Hillary captures the current Bush family residence), but it could be nearly anything else. How far the rebellion gets depends on many factors, but the 2 that I see as most important are the targets of those who initially revolt, and the reaction of the Fedgov.

If the rebels choose politicians who (or whose political philosophy) are widely believed to be responsible for the mess we're in, then there'll be less of an outcry. Same for certain Hollywood and TV types that are the Amen Corner for the radical Left. Outright sympathy will result if those BATF (or other lettered agency types) with a proven track record of brutality toward innocents are given a free dirt nap, courtesy of Rule 308. Double the sympathy, at least, if IRS agents are targeted. Any other set of targets (like, for instance, completely innocent civilians or family members of the aforementioned JBTs) will result in complete failure. If the acts are widespread, and appear uncoordinated (as they likely would, in fact, be), this will help the "cause" by making it a "grassroots" effort across the country. A coordinated series of events carried out by, for example, groups of former special forces types could be made by the Fedgov to look like terrorism, but will also dramatically lower confidence in the effectiveness of the Fedgov in its role as everyman's nanny. On the government side, if the acts of a relatively few result in the wholesale reduction or elimination of basic rights, then the government will have played right into the hands of the rebels. This will be especially true if the reaction is to register all guns or, worse, to confiscate weapons from the general populace. It would also likely result in the defection of many police and members of the military who side with the Constitution and the people of this country. Such defections could take the form of outright defection to fighting ranks, selling or giving out HIGHLY effective weapons (grenades and Stingers, anyone?) or stay-behinds who would act as moles for the rebel cause. One can only hope that such a possibility gives those contemptuous of our liberties many sleepless nights.

As to numbers, Travis' statement about 10 million hunters is sobering (or should be for the likes of Schumer and Feinstein). The vast majority, as many have pointed out, will do nothing - you know, after a few thousand years of civilization, the would-be tyrants have learned well from Rome: bread and circuses have evolved into junk food delivered to your door and cable/satellite TV/computer games. Keep most people's bellies full and their minds focused on mind-numbing crap, and most of the population will be docile. But it doesn't take many to start big problems. I like Bogie's analysis, but it must go further. First, there are something like 4.5 million NRA members, not 3 million, but the real point is that there are 80 million gun owners who collectively (yeah, there's THAT word) possess somewhere north of 250 million guns. Many choose not to join the NRA to "stay off of a list" or because the NRA is "too soft" on gun control issues (I belong, but also believe they are too soft). Anyway, the proper place to begin calculating the number of initial rebels is the entire pool of shooters. OK, 80 million x 1% = 800,000 really ticked off people. Now assume that only 1% of those are not only mad, but prepared to act on their anger. Viola, 8,000 "snipers" like the guy in DC a few months back - except almost all would be much better skilled, better motivated, and desperate NOT to be caught. Many will be former snipers or special forces who were trained specifically to eliminate key targets and evade capture, many will be varmint hunters who regularly hunt somewhat crafty animals, and many will be benchrest shooters who get ticked off if their groups are more than 0.5 MOA. Oh, and they'll have MUCH better equipment than the DC-area murderers - guns accurate enough to reliably hit a dinner plate from at least 500 yards, and some able to strike a man-sized target at nearly 1,000 yards. A dangerous lot, this one. Hell, even 1% of that number results in 80 dedicated and skilled shooters - one in a million gun owners - this number would shut down the country, and vastly increase the cost of being publicly anti-gun and pro-big government.

The only thing going for the Fedgov in a situation like this would be the disorganized and piecemeal attacks that would be likely. I think that the "Unintended Consequences" scenario is unlikely. But even a few incidents a year by highly skilled and motivated people would bring commerce to a stop in large areas for weeks or months at a time - decreasing confidence in the government and increasing economic problems caused (or contributed to) by outrageously burdensome taxes and regulations. The Fedgov would be in serious trouble just because it couldn't possibly stop these incidents. And the temptation of those leading the government at the time will undoubtedly be to "make a few examples" to cow the population. Such actions would swell the ranks of active resisters and those who aid or hide them.

Could the revolt succeed? I don't know and neither does anyone else - there are too many assumptions that people disagree about, and even if all assumptions were agreed upon, too many variables to consider. However, I believe that a relatively few people could demonstrate the impotence of the government, resulting in the kind of wide-spread passive resistance that is more likely to succeed (study the fall of the Romanovs or the Weimar Republic to see such a dynamic in action). The fact that there hasn't already been a revolt is less a monument to the effectiveness of the "bread and circuses" strategy of the would-be tyrants than a tribute to the extraordinary patience and faith in our system that a bunch of people who've been stepped on and robbed of their heritage over the last couple of generations.

G-d help those in power if such an event occurs - I won't. It will be of their doing, and they will reap the whirlwind. I don't wish for such a thing, especially due to the large number of innocents that will perish or lose everything, but whether it comes to pass is entirely up to the tyrant-wannabees, as I'm sure that all but literally a few dozen people in the country would be very satisfied to merely be left alone.

Cosmoline
January 28, 2003, 06:00 PM
The point of my earlier post was, it's all well and good to talk about "revolution," but unless and until you're willing to spell out:

1--What you're revolting against
2--What specific changes you want
3--Why those changes can't be accomplished by peaceful means
4--Who, when the time comes, you will or will not be willing to actually shoot

it's all hot air.

It's easy enough when GAR is marching in and burning your town. You shoot at Union soldiers. Do you honestly think anything like that will happen again? I dislike the UN, but any notion of "blue helmets" marching on US cities is absurd. So who are you planning on fighting?

Travis McGee
January 28, 2003, 06:36 PM
Cosmoline:

"So who are you planning on fighting?"

In my scenario, which I have written about in my book "Enemies Foreign And Domestic", war is between our own government and those folks who refuse to comply with a law banning the private possession of any semi auto rifes ("assault rifles" to the dominant sheeple nation) after a contrived football stadium massacre which is blamed on a "right wing militia gun nut."

http://matthewbracken.web.aplus.net/

You can read the first half of it right on the website, 28 chapters, enough to get the gist of how I see this type of deliberately engineered situation spin into a low level "dirty war" of assassinations and secret arrests.

MitchSchaft
January 28, 2003, 06:41 PM
http://home.midsouth.rr.com/schaftlfam/pics/Misc/s_warningtoevil.jpg :eek:

Ian
January 28, 2003, 06:43 PM
1. Taxation, regulation of industry, regulation of private property, prohibition of consentual victimless crimes, the risk of being drafted to kill people on some 3rd world crudhole.

2. The end of the above-mentioned things. Ideally, the dissolution of government (but any progress towards that end will be celebrated).

3. Hopefully, they can be. If not, it will be due to an abundance of politicians willing to commit grand larceny, assault, and fraud against entire population and enjoy immunity from punishment for it.

4. Any armed representative of a government agency, whose actions and demeanor convince me that my life is in danger. Bureaucracy, if defied or ignored, will eventually manifest itself in the form of black-clad, jackbooted, gun-toting thugs (ask Mr. Weaver). When the government acts no differently from a common criminals (albeit very well-funded common criminals) then they should be treated as such.

St. Gunner
January 28, 2003, 06:43 PM
1--What you're revolting against

A government and its agencies that refuse to abide by the constitution of the United States. The laws they have passed that have unsurped freedoms like privacy and gun rights.

2--What specific changes you want

I want all gun laws appealed, ten years ago I would have been content to rip em back to 1968, but after witnessing the incrementalism of the anti-gun crowd, I want em all repealed so we start on fresh ground. I want any law that violates the 4th amendment trashed. I want any law that is found to be in direct conflict with the constitution to be examined and tossed by a panel of non-political, unbiased sources. Not career judges and politicians.

3--Why those changes can't be accomplished by peaceful means


Because in the last 50 years government has shown a tendency to ignore the legal law abiding citizens rights in the name of safety for the masses. Those masses, which are a majority are a voting block the politicians need. What the masses have been led to believe is this country is a democracy, I heard the President refer to it as such. This country is a constitutional republic, and if the politicians refuse to acknowledge that fact, then any hopes of peaceful resolution flew out the window 50yrs ago. Politicians are trying to stay employeed, that means catering to the block of misguided citizens who call this place a democracy.

4--Who, when the time comes, you will or will not be willing to actually shoot

1. Innocent ignorant common folks are safe from rifle fire

2. Clergy is safe from rifle fire

3. The President is safe from rifle fire(no matter how much I have disliked some in the past)

4. The family of people on the list of targets is safe from rifle fire.

5. Selected pro-gun politicians are safe from rifle fire

6. LEO's are safe from rifle fire if they do their job of solving crimes and keeping the streets safe from dangerous drivers. They aren't participating in gun grabs, illegal wire taping, and assorted other rights infringements that some agencies have become famous for.

7. I will not shoot a woman unless she shoots at me first.

ROE
1. I will take care in placing my shots so that collatoral damage does not happen.

2. I will pray every night that I am doing the right thing for my country.

3. I will be willing to cease fire for negotiations as long as the government is willing to do the same.

4. I will not attempt to topple the system, only purge it of fascist controls in place.

5. I will attempt at every step and turn to never dispatch a man in front of his family.

6. I will not bomb, drive-by, or take any action that is indescriminate in its selection of a target.

7. When a suitable solution is reached by those at the front in the negotiations, I will put my rifle away and live as a free man, or rest in peace as a dead one.

Targets:

It ought to be pretty chrystal from who is not on the list and what is not said in the ROE's.

I'll be praying tonight I never have to implement any of the above, but maybe they ought to be praying for the power to do the right thing.

Yep cosmoline, I have been thinking about it for only about 10yrs or so, but not a day goes by I don't ask the big guy upstairs to remedy the problem.

:(

Cosmoline
January 28, 2003, 06:52 PM
I don't agree with many of those goals, but I do agree with others. Why, though, is a "revolution" needed to achieve them? It wasn't so very long ago that there WERE no Federal gun laws and the federal government was a tiny little thing. Why is it so hard to believe we will reach that place again through democratic channels? I don't see how waiving guns around is going to help achieve these goals. In fact, it's bound to scare the crap out of people!

Ian
January 28, 2003, 06:53 PM
I hate to say it, but the laws that we're complaining about here
ARE Constitutional. The Constitution allows the government several simple paths around virtually any limit on power (see Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1,18 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2). Repealing abhorrent laws is only a temporary fix - they'll come back sooner or later in some form. To truly cure the problem, we have to replace the Constitution with a better charter of government (or, ideally, no Federal government).

"The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." - Lysander Spooner (1870)

Cosmoline
January 28, 2003, 07:07 PM
Much of the current federal government is indeed unconstitutional. Take the commerce clause, for example. If the Enumerated Powers were read correctly, the commerce clause would not be a viable basis for anything other than laws directly relating to commerce. Correcting this error alone would destroy most of the federal government in one fell swoop. Justice Thomas would do it. All we need are four more like him. It can be done, WITHOUT a bloody revolution.

St. Gunner
January 28, 2003, 07:11 PM
I hate to say it, but the laws that we're complaining about here

Ian, not all of them, if it says, "Shall not be infringed" it is pretty cut and dried. I know what you are saying, that the SC has upheld those laws as being constitutional. But the problem is, it is not the document isn't perfect, it is the people who are interpreting it are corrupt. A sane, honest, moral man would not be able to look at the 1934 GCA and uphold it by using the constitution as a guide, same with 1968 GCA, the AWB, and a host of other laws. If the judge sitting on the court is labeled conservative or liberal, we are already in trouble. If you sit on that court you ought to be a constitutionalist.

The problem is this nation lost its backbone, we expect others to fend for us, protect us, and in general look out for our welfare. The majority vote that way, the other part vote a third party ticket.

(or, ideally, no Federal government).

Ian, somebody has to be the man holding the bag at the end of the day. If North Korea needs a surgical strike to render their WMD ineffective, we can't have 50 states trying to decide if it is ok or not. I trust the man in the whitehouse to make those types of decisions, I do question his current stance on Iraq because of his fathers history. I do not trust the man in the whitehouse to provide for my personal safety, I would prefer to see that happen on a state level. If the Fed would stick with international problems and work to insure that the states abided by the constitution, I would be a happy camper. But imagine ********** with Davis at the healm and Feinstein and Boxer calling the shots with no constitution to restrain them. There is a need, but it needs to be carefully restrained.

If those down the line neglect it as we have for to long, then yes once again they will have to fight to retain it. But that is the nature of the beast and I think Jefferson and rest understood that. What did he say about every 20yrs or so?;)

pax
January 28, 2003, 07:16 PM
Can't fight city hall.

The gov't is always more powerful than the citizens.

There's nothing we can do about it.

All three statements would be news to the folks at Lexington and Concord, to the folks in Afghanistan under nominal Russian rule, to the French in the days before the Revolution, to the millions who once lived under Brittish Imperial rule.

It's just a question of how badly you want it and how much you are willing to pay for it.

pax

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? -- Patrick Henry

Chris Rhines
January 28, 2003, 07:25 PM
Revolution can take many shapes. It's not all about lining up nice and neat and killing redcoats. It's not even about sneaking around with the ol' .308 and 'voting from the rooftops.'

I have no faith whatsoever in the ballot box, but there are other avenues to explore before the bullets start rainin'. Propaganda, sabotage, civil disobedience, economic warfare, and many other important elements all make up resistence to the State.

The thing that worries me is that some of the red squirty stuff may well be necessary, and that'll be a mess no matter who ends up winning...

- Chris

Ian
January 28, 2003, 07:31 PM
St. Gunner - If the Constitution should have been written so as to not allow loopholes like the SC having the final say on issues of Constitutionality (especially considering that the SC justices are appointed by the executive and legislative branches). We cannot (and should not) rely on the assumption that politicians will always be honest. It's a long-proven reality that they rarely are. Also, keep in mind that the Constitution was written, in secret assembly, by a slew of politicians and lawyers.

"We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures the best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power.
Many are of the opinion, that Congress have too frequently made use of the supplicant, humble tone of requisition in applications to the States, when they had a right to assert their imperial dignity and command obediance."
-George Washington to John Jay, August 1 1786

Personally, I wouldn't trust a guy in the White House enough to loan him five bucks (unless his name was Thomas Jefferson). You're welcome to trust him with anything of yours, but I don't want someone else volunteering me without my consent.

DeltaElite
January 28, 2003, 07:35 PM
I don't believe there will be a revolution. There aren't enough people with the fortitude to engage in one.
We are too comfortable in our lifestyles to risk it all for politics.

Saber rattling, but no revolution.

St. Gunner
January 28, 2003, 08:51 PM
). We cannot (and should not) rely on the assumption that politicians will always be honest. It's a long-proven reality that they rarely are.


:D Yep, you are right, my problem is I expect people to be for the most part honest. That doesn't mean I don't think evil doesn't exist, it means that I think most of our problems stem from the same problem, people expect others to be honest. That makes it that much easier for a man with suave speeches and good looks to swoon the nation.

I think that if you came to the front of a convention and said trash the constitution, you'd face a horde of dissent. But the real yard stick to measure by is what would those around you say, I think part of what cosmoline has been trying to say is you can't do it without some sort of consensus, and I don't think you can ever reach a consensus if you stipulate the gutting of the constitution. Want to add to it, like term limits, make a man who held office before ineligible to hold it again in any other position ever, you'd get a host of takers. It would remove the political career slime buckets, sure their would be drawbacks, but their is with every situation in this world.

The other problem is one that was brought up earlier in this thread, if you abolish the government, what insures something worse doesn't fill its void. So if you leave the basic frame-work in place, and add in more protections for the people, you should be able to garner more support for any type of revolt, and if those protections are properly presented, you may take a revolt with little backing and turn it in to a popular revolt.

I go to school at one of the most socialist institutions in the State of Texas, even the socialist have become fed-up with the governments intrusions into their lives. That tells you that the masses as a whole are on the brink of something...

What it is depends entirely upon how it is presented. If you destroy everything this country was founded upon it seems to me you would be creating a power struggle, granted we might come out on top and have it all fixed as we see fit, then again someone else might and we end up worse than before.

That is the main reason I can't fathom dismantling the constitution.

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