[DigitalWarrior]

Why are people saying "revolt"? Especially in relation to the RKBA?

There was a thread asking what would happen if the USSC ruled that the 2nd was a "collective" right (whatever the hell that means). More than half mentioned revolt. ***? There are other options, if we take them before tossing ourselves bodily into the meat chipper of the modern military.

There is The Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org) which is aiming to move a whole bunch of liberty lovers to New Hampshire. Once there, we may be able to make an amendment that says "Our well regulated Militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall be comprised of all non-felon citizens of the State of New Hampshire, and shall be subject to the Militia regulations relating to the ownership of militia armaments" A seperate document that defines militia regulations shall be written and appr.

*POOF* No more federal legislation related to firearms.

So why are we saying the word "revolt" again?

[Jack T.]

Maybe because Federal Law trumps state law?

[DigitalWarrior]

But the anti's argue that the second is related to state militias. The very minimum that the amendment can be interperated as is "The Fed cannot infringe on the state militia's right to keep and bear Arms"

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

[Chipperman]

Because the Anti-gunners' viewpoint is REVOLTING!

:D

[biere]

Goody, those folks will all be in one state for a minor nuclear accident to occur and it will be blamed on terrorists.

Actually, I just find it sad that we are at the point where so many people will try to overwhelm a state so that they can vote their beliefs.

In a time past the government worked in the people's best interests.

These days our government grows and acts in its best interests. My opinion since I don't feel like trying to post facts to it.

I am not going to move to one state so one out of 50 can be free, states that is.

I am currently in agreement with claire wolfe, I think she is the one who said it is still monkey wrench time.

After that time I don't see a time where you concentrate in one state to create a smaller target.

I also might vote revolt, I have not reached the thread mentioned.

And I do want all to know that I hope their take over of the state goes well. I hope many can learn from what occurs.

I just don't want anyone to think that I am willing to move in order to gain what I consider my rights.

IF I was born with the natural rights that I feel belong to me, I don't have to move in order to find them. They go where I go.

[schizrade]

Wow, NH looks pretty good actually. Maybe I'll go there instead of NV. Not as damn hot.

[priv8ter]

Chipperman, you beat me to it...Although, I find a lot more than just the Anti-gunners viewpoint revolting...

In an attempt to answer your question Digital Warrior:

Here is what I THINK some people are thinking. The time to fight back is when you are strongest. Say, the USSC makes some sweeping 2nd Ammendment Judgement, NOT in our favor. SO...do you wait 20 years while they slowly nickle and dime you with new gun laws, until all you have to fight back with are single-shot .22 rifles, or, do you start fighting back now, when people still have 30-round magazines for their AR-10's and FN's...

Like I said, it's not necessarily my viewpoint, but from talking to some people, I know it is the viewpoint of some. As for me...I'm not really sure where my 'revolt' line is drawn. The wife and I were talking about this while reading Unintended Consequences. What we finally decided is...when the time does come(IF it does) then, we will know.


greg

[Thumper]

I just find it sad that we are at the point where so many people will try to overwhelm a state so that they can vote their beliefs.

Their beliefs?

Have you seen the arguments BETWEEN Free Staters? Free Staters, even here, range from admitted Anarchists to admitted Socialists.

[Justin]

Because it's so much more fun to fantasize about being Rambo than to fanstasize about writing your legislators.

:rolleyes:

[stevelyn]

.........before tossing ourselves bodily into the meat-chipper of a modern military.

The founding fathers tossed themselves into a meat chipper of a modern military with support of about a 1/3 of the population.
People of Eastern Block nations in the 1980s and 90's tossed themselves into the meat chipper of modern militaries, nations which had a reputation of ruthlessly putting down rebellions and unrest.
Insurgents are throwing themselves into the meat chipper of a modern military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funny thing is, if the insurgents could really shoot worth a damn we'd be feeling the pain of their attacks a lot more.
Don't count on the military following order to fire on their own people. Of course there are always going to be order following loyalists in the military. But the sons and daughters serving in our armed forces won't turn against their own people en mass.

[buy guns]

Because it's so much more fun to fantasize about being Rambo than to fanstasize about writing your legislators.


yes and we can all see how well that has worked in cali.

[oldfart]

Justin, we all fantasize about being Rambo. Some more than others, but we all do it. Otherwise, why bother to own guns? If it might be because we enjoy the shiny metal, then why the camo? If it's because (as some suggest) it makes us feel more masculine, then why do women also own guns?

No, back in the farthest corners of our minds, we all know that someday-- not today and not tomorrow, but someday-- we're going to have to shoot some government agents. Some of our number have been in shooting wars and aren't in any hurry to do it again, but we would if we had to. Most of us hope that we'll be spared that experience but fear that our children won't be so fortunate.

We all know that Big Brother reads what we write here and notes who and what is being said. While few of us have a great deal of respect for the "intelligence" community, I think we can be fairly certain they know who and where we are and whether or not we constitute any real threat to the powers that be. Our occasional mention of the "R" word is probably considered more of a catharsis than a threat, allowing us to vent some of our anger and energy in a harmless forum.

Yeah, we'd all like to be Rambo but many of us are too old and fat to run across the yard while others are too young and green to know what to do when they got there. Now I know why youth is wasted on the young.

[Sindawe]

I take exception to your statement that all of us have fantasies about being Rambo. *I* do not fantasize about being Rambo and shooting .gov agents.

*I* fantasize about being Sporpious, putting some .gov agents in the Aurora Chair and segmenting their minds, as many layers as it takes for them to see the error of their ways. That and having some fun with a certain wall-walking redhead. :D

But humor aside, Oldfart is correct in that a good many of us know/fear that there will/may come a day when we have no choice as a free people but to shot some of our fellow citizens who happen to be in the employ of our own .gov, or surrender to a life time of servitude and tyranny for ourselves and our posterity. I'd rather that that evil day never comes, and in my humble opinion one way to ensure it never happens is for our 'leaders' and their agents to know well and true that there are folks in this country who WILL take to '...shooting the bastards' if pressed. Speaking such on public forums such as THR, which are likely monitored and cataloged, is one way of letting our 'leaders' and their agents know this.

[Turkey Creek]

Don't under estimate us old, fat, slow, farts- Age and treachery will always overcome youth and enthusiasm!

[DigitalWarrior]

Biere -
So you are unwilling to move to be free, but are fine watching the people you love be torn apart by a 20mm gatling gun? You would rather have a revolt that, if "successful", will cause immense starvation and widespread destruction? If it fails, then the government has more reasons to take our guns. Unwilling to move, but willing to shoot.

Once freedom is achieved in one state, and that state becomes a powerhouse, then other states will want to emulate it's success.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
priv8ter -
The plan for fighting when you are strongest certainly applies here but the problem is that your strength is not measured only by the ammunition capacity of your magazine, but it is really like strength = (firepower/person) x committed people x communications^2

The reality is that we would probably achieve more by laying down in front of a tank, than by shooting at the tank commander's best friend. At least as long as there is humanity in the average tank commander. And when it is gone, then they would just go all dresden on our asses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
stevelyn -
There are so many differences between what you mentioned and what a revolter's situation would be, I cannot believe that you have thought about it for more than ten minutes. If you would really like me to I can illustrate it, but I think that you will be able to see it on your own.

The military WILL shoot a bunch of "Domestic Terrorists" who are shooting at them. Have no doubt. Shoot at them and they will not hesitate. You will die.

[Don Gwinn]

Oldfart, that was an exceptionally insulting post that expressed nothing of any great merit. Congratulations.

[DigitalWarrior]

I do not think that I have seen a single socialist among all the FSPers that I have met. I have met anarchists, minarchists, libertarians, conservatives, christians, pagans, and athiests. What is amazing is that with perhaps half a dozen (very vocal) exceptions, we are working together to build a better state where we have many magnitudes more freedom.

I would ask that you not be put off by the arguers, count them. I would say that there are maybe six. That is one in one thousand. There are thousands of volunteers who are working with their local groups to make this happen.

We all agree that the government needs to be reduced by about two thirds. I cannot see how that could ever be considered socialist.

[stevelyn]

DW,

The idea is not to have to engage the military. I can't see the military as being the "enemy". The enemy is further up the food chain than the military. Hopefully, if the time ever came to shoot, conditions will have deteriorated to the point that even the military was suffering and could see the problem and not engage the citizenry but safeguard the borders and skies from outsiders.

BTW I support the concept of the FSP and hope it's a success. But in following your line of logic, once you start becoming too independent of the Great Benevolent Father on the Potomac, they will work to shut it down and discourage others from trying the same thing. It will start with the federal bribes being withdrawn as punishment. Then mysterious events occurring to the leaders. Then end with a proactive campaign shut down dissent. Kind of a reconstruction and occupation.

[Wildalaska]

Because it's so much more fun to fantasize about being Rambo than to fanstasize about writing your legislators.

o my god, rationality, begone o destroyer of internet machoness, begone!

Justin, we all fantasize about being Rambo. Some more than others, but we all do it. Otherwise, why bother to own guns?

Um I can think of a hundered reasons other than overt or subconsious mall ninjaness...soryy you cant

No, back in the farthest corners of our minds, we all know that someday-- not today and not tomorrow, but someday-- we're going to have to shoot some government agents

Not in my mind since Ive never been diagnosed with one of the conditions set forth in the DSM....if you really beleive that I suggest to seek help...

WildthesunisshinigAlaska

[DigitalWarrior]

Steve -
Thanks for the moral support. If and when the Fed decides to take away Federal Funding, they will be in for a hell of a surprise from the granite staters. See there is an intersting statistic New Hampshire taxpayers receive among the least amount of federal funding per dollar of federal taxes paid. Per dollar of federal tax collected in 2002, New Hampshire citizens received approximately $0.66 in the way of federal spending. This ranks the state 3rd lowest among all states.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/newhampshire/

What would you think the state legislature would do? I figure if they recommend that their citizens withhold paying one third of their taxes for one week, the fed would get the message.

Another reason New Hampshire was picked: it does not suck on the Federal teat.

[2nd Amendment]

Your relative unwillingness to defend the 2A is well noted, Wild. Sorry, it just is.

Any thinking person knows the day will come. And the fact is it may well NOT be a 2A issue that provokes it. It could well be taxation, land grabs or even a martial law situation "justified" by terrorist attack or natural disaster. No nation endures forever. They all fall. The US is no different and certainly is not immune. I can't imagine anyone actually thinks this nation is eternal.

The only real questions are when will it happen and, most importantly, what comes after? Regardless of whatever provokes revolt in the US, and whenever it happens, I hope people think beyond the fight to what they intend to build afterwards and HOW they will build it. That's what made our Revolution different from most. A lack of such forethought is what will make the next one a hopeless mess like most others.

[Wildalaska]

Your relative unwillingness to defend the 2A is well noted, Wild. Sorry, it just is.

Y a mean my well known unwillingness to spout rambo rhetoric on the internet dont ya? Or my lack of toleration for internet freedom commandos?

But here lets see now, tell us what you have done to defend the 2nd am in the past few months?? Hmmm???

Any thinking person knows the day will come.

For revolt? Hmm I guess I dont think then becasue I dont know that a revolt will come...

WildbetyamutantzombiesattackAlaska

[2nd Amendment]

What have I done? Contributed to the Republican Party, assisted in a dinner for one of the strongest pro-gun House Republicans, wrote letters to Congress Critters, debated the issue publicly AND initiated the formation of what I hope will become a viable Third Party(probably a pipe-dream, true) among other things. What have YOU done?

You don't think revolt will ever come? Then you believe the US will endure for all eternity, satisfying all the public to a sufficient degree they never, ever, even once, get fed up and throw the bastards out by whatever means available? Eternity is a long time, Wild...

[goalie]

Justin, we all fantasize about being Rambo. Some more than others, but we all do it. Otherwise, why bother to own guns? If it might be because we enjoy the shiny metal, then why the camo? If it's because (as some suggest) it makes us feel more masculine, then why do women also own guns?

I find this pretty dang funny. Some of us have actually had to use weapons in a war already and are not in any hurry to do it again. We do not sit around fantasizing about being Rambo. Not at all. Not ever.

Then again, I liked doing it in the Marine Corps so much that I got out and became a nurse. I guess I must just be secure enough in my manhood to not need to sit around fantasizing about stuff I sincerely hope never happens.


FWIW, just the other day I was shooting with a fellow HighRoader and this exact subject came up. It turns out P0832177 also is secure enough in his manhood to not need to fantasize about that kind of crap as well. In fact, he can vouch for the fact that I love to wear boonie hats, and, despite having several cammie ones from when I was in the Corps, when going shooting I somehow seem to always have on my Columbia boonie hat. Gee, I also was wearing brown hiking boots instead of the combat boots I have in the closet, and, you guessed it, Columbia shorts instead of the BDU pants that are also in the closet.

Maybe I own guns for self-defense, hunting, and personal enjoyment.

[johnr]

I support the concept of the FSP and hope it's a success. But in following your line of logic, once you start becoming too independent of the Great Benevolent Father on the Potomac, they will work to shut it down and discourage others from trying the same thing. It will start with the federal bribes being withdrawn as punishment.
Exactly my thoughts.

[LAK]

"Our well regulated Militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall be comprised of all non-felon citizens of the State of New Hampshire, and shall be subject to the Militia regulations relating to the ownership of militia armaments" etc

DigitalWarrior,

Almost sounds good. You might run headlong into the federal government over the NFA though.

Outside of the National Guard (the organized militia) it is the unorganized militia under Title 10 Section 311 USC that applies to all able-bodied men - in a certain age group. It is this catagory that seem to lack attention today in the context of the 2nd Amendment and the States.

Although a "revolt" is highly unlikely given the divide and devour piecemeal strategy that has been so consistantly and thoroughly employed over a very long period of time, it has little to do with the "power" of a "modern army".

An army must occupy and control territory. Not many fools are going to rush out into the streets to meet an army of tanks with small arms; but those tank crews have to come out of their shells sometimes, those machines have to be maintained, and parts, fuel etc supplied. There are a great number of civilians in this country whose knowledge and skills are in certain areas of science, civil engineering etc that have the "technology" to either destroy such things or render them unusable, to say nothing of topographical and other factors limiting their use. The only way a "modern army" could prevail in a country such as ours would be if the government over them was prepared to level whole towns, cities all over the country quite literally.

In the event of such a manifestation the military would likely split down the middle anyway. An army of a million troops could not do it - an army of a million divided against itself wouldn't stand a chance, even with a split grossly weighted in their favor. It is somewhat comforting to know that our military is still largely conservative (especially the officer ranks). This despite the fact that the civilian authority is increasingly not.

[Molon Labe]

There is The Free State Project which is aiming to move a whole bunch of liberty lovers to New Hampshire.I like the Free State Wyoming Project better:

http://www.javelinpress.com/free_state_wyoming.html

[DigitalWarrior]

LAK -
Thanks for the post. I see you have thought about this for a while. I agree with you, but you have to remember that the modern government is supported by the vast majority of people. However the insurrection you describe would certainly mess things up. But there is little need for guns in your scenario. A chemical Engineer hands a satchel charge explosive made from drano, particle board, and match heads(will not do anything, so don't try it Rambo) to a guy who duct tapes it to the underside of a bridge. No one uses a gun in that scenario. Not saying that they couldn't possibly be used, just that the mission is not compromised by a ten round magazine.

I would have guessed that if new hampshire calls it a well-regulated militia, then it is a well-regulated militia. Active or inactive is not specified in the Ammendment.

The military will not split down the middle. Control of information is pretty good. Those who revolt would be labeled domestic Terrorists. I would bet that 99 in 100 would have shot to kill Timothy McViegh(sp?)

[PBIR]

McVeigh is a far cry from rolling your Abrahms through Jersey crushing your countrymen's houses.

[DigitalWarrior]

The Free State Wyoming Project is good too. The fear that I have is that both projects will get 15000 people, not enough for either, but 150% of what would be required for one. Sometimes I compare the FSP to a strategic retreat. Sure as hell wish I didn't have to do it. But it might give us another chance.

I joined the FSP because it came first, and because I think that it is critical that one is pulled off.

[DigitalWarrior]

They wouldn't roll over their countrymens houses. The enemies of civil liberties are not idiots. Nor are our military commanders. They would be as polite as possible if there was a bunch of domestic terrorists running around in a town. Until they started getting shot. If the civilians weren't trying to help catch the terrorists, than the soldiers would stop caring about the civilians. And many people would die.

McViegh how any domestic terrorist will be painted.

And they will not go house to house looking for guns. The local police will overwhelm a single house at 2:00am when the IR shows everyone is asleep. There will be no glorious last stand. Freedom dies with a whimper. Arrests will come one at a time. No barbed wire detention centers that could generate inconvenient pictures. Just one at a time "psychos" get arrested because they needed to put a bayonett on the front of a gun. And he lived near a SCHOOL!

[PBIR]

They would be as polite as possible if there was a bunch of domestic terrorists running around in a town. Until they started getting shot. If the civilians weren't trying to help catch the terrorists, than the soldiers would stop caring about the civilians.

Well, that's a nice scenario, but I don't think it would go that way if we are talking about a massive revolt. Even if it does, at this point : "the soldiers would stop caring about the civilians" is when you would start to see the military entropy start.

The fact is, none of us have any way of knowing how it would go down. The scenario you developed is just one of many countless ways.

[Detachment Charlie]

"Revolt" is the philosophical father of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is there (and it IS listed Second) not to allow you to hunt ducks or deer, nor to allow you to protect yourself from thugs, vagabonds, interlopers, highwaymen, zombies, space aliens, rabid dogs, mountain lions (including pumas and cougars) or people who listen to those voices in their heads.

It is there to allow the citizen a last resort to protect himself from an out-of-control government. We did it once before.

Of course, this always causes some people in the government to sleep lightly, as it should.

[DigitalWarrior]

Revolts don't start off massive. Ever. It is not like on one day everyone realizes "Hey I got to shoot me a Fed." They come to the decision one at a time by propoganda.

It's true that I outlined one possible scenario, but I know of no other scenario that doesn't include
1. Our military loses their helicopters, night vision, Sat Recon, pinpoint artillery, intel, and/or communications gear.
2. Our military is exceptionally stupid (wrecklessly killing people for no reason)
3. Our citizens perform as military grade soldiers.

50% of the Country is against gun rights. Probably 8 in 10 people trust the news. When the 15 second soundbite says "Three police officers were killed today by anti-government extremist who were determined to keep their military grade weapons. The police confiscated 15 assault rifles and thirty thousand bullets (wonder what that was for jane. Ha. Shut up and let me get to the news Tom.) If you want to make a donation to JBT Memorial Fund (show picture of pretty widow w/. kid in corner) please send your donation to 1600 Pennsylvania ave...

[PBIR]

Revolts don't start off massive.

Granted. But then again, they don't have to. They just have to end up that way.

[DigitalWarrior]

Detachment -
I agree with you on the purpose of the second. But I ask why people mention "Revolt" when there are a grip of options left. The problem I see is that we are thinking the government is out of control, before it really is.

Did you ever notice that when you assasinate someone, you typically make them more popular? For instance if some whack job shot Sarah Brady, Michael Moore, Dianne Feinsein, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy their point would be proven to most Americans and they would reach out from their graves to do in death what they could never do in life. That is all that would be achieved (and a boom in the bodyguard business).

[DigitalWarrior]

[socratic mode on]How would it get massive?

[NMshooter]

How come everyone assumes there would be only two sides? Lot more factions than that in this country, much less a world full of countries with a definite interest in the outcome of any such event. Things ever get to that point it will be a big mess.

[DigitalWarrior]

NM Shooter-
That is a fantastic point! Thanks for breaking me of that assumption. You would have a thousand little napoleons with half a fire-team.

Maybe if we were lucky, there would only be half a dozen major factions (5000+ people) trying to blow each other up. We would want peace so bad we would accept Mugabe as our leader.

That would be worse than anything I've imagined... Dude, major suckage.:uhoh:

[rick_reno]

Why are people saying "revolt"?

Simple, for the chest-thumping touch typist it's only 6 easy key strokes.

[ojibweindian]

There will be no organized revolt for one/a few noble causes.

If anything, there will be generalized lawlessness.

[PBIR]

[socratic mode on]How would it get massive?

how would it not?

The beauty of the Socratic method is it is a two-way street.

[Thumper]

Maybe if we were lucky, there would only be half a dozen major factions (5000+ people) trying to blow each other up. We would want peace so bad we would accept Mugabe as our leader.

So you're not a big devotee of Ayn Rand, huh?

[WilderBill]

I think that the "R" word comes up in much the same way that a rattlesnake uses it's rattle.

If you are walking down a trail and a rattler sees you coming, he will keep an eye on you and at some point raise his head ready to strike and rattle at the same time.

It happens that I speak just enouh snake to translate that action.
He is saying ' I can't stop you from taking that next step, the one that will put your foot in striking range or maybe on my head, but I will surely make you regret it if you do'.

For further reference on that subject look up the "Don't Tread On Me " flag.

[DigitalWarrior]

Ahh yes Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. I like her underlying philosophy. Her writing is crap, her characters are devoid of humanity, her plot is not believable. I have never met a person in real life who said "I was enthralled by Galt's speech at the end, I didn't get it over the first 500 pages, it took that 27 page speech for me to realize that rational self interest is good.". Her novels' only redeeming characteristic is the fact that they end. Eventually. At least I heard that they end.

Unintended Consequences was far better, though still not good (the ending was horrible).

I am just kidding about the only redeeming characteristic being the end. I liked a lot of points that were illustrated in the book. The logical conclusion of "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." was especially good. But you have to admit (her writing) = (horrible) x (long)^2

[DigitalWarrior]

WilderBill -
I think I understand better now. Thank you.

What had bothered me is that "R" is not the best course of action, but if I think about it as an automatic response, then it makes more sense. It isn't smart, may not have the intended consequence, but isn't supposed to be.

I would like to imagine that humans exhibit more forthought than a rattlesnake, but that was my problem. We often act on instinct alone. I need to come to understand that.

[2nd Amendment]

I don't believe that was what he was saying, Digital. As I take his intent Revolt is the equal of the snake's rattle. It is telling you you have gone far enough and any further will cost you dearly. Maybe even everything. It's an opportunity for you to retreat. It's not an automatic reflex but a specific tool to achieve a specific result. As for whether it is the best course of action, that depends entirely on the prevailing situation.

[DigitalWarrior]

I am not sure.

My original question is "why are people talking about revolt?" I read his answer to mean that people talk about revolt in the same way that rattlesnakes shake their tail. As a warning to revisit the path that led them there.

The thing is that I was walking around in my tall grass and heard a rattlesnake, I would walk away. But my response would not end there, I would come back with a boomstick and a barbeque. Which is how I imagine any thinking person would respond to it (can't have a nest of rattlers in the backyard). I think that the analogy holds true.

The thing is that I didn't understand why poeple were using "R" when it is so obviously not the time, and we have so many options. The answer was that it is a dog's growl or a snake's rattle. Doesn't mean anything other than the noisemaker is nervous.

[2nd Amendment]

But if you don't have a boomstick big enough to deal with the rattler you won't come back, will you? The Citizenry of the US is a mighty big snake which will take one helluva boomstick to deal with...one far larger than the government is ever likely to possess.

[LAK]

DigitalWarrior I agree with you, but you have to remember that the modern government is supported by the vast majority of people. However the insurrection you describe would certainly mess things up. But there is little need for guns in your scenario. A chemical Engineer hands a satchel charge explosive made from drano, particle board, and match heads(will not do anything, so don't try it Rambo) to a guy who duct tapes it to the underside of a bridge. No one uses a gun in that scenario. Not saying that they couldn't possibly be used, just that the mission is not compromised by a ten round magazine.

... I do not think that the current agenda of our government is that well-supported. But that is another subject altogether.

Certainly small arms are essential in any conflict either by aggressor or defender. Rather than improvisations, the civil engineering technology I speak of is rather more sophisticated than that; most of the modern types of high explosives are regularly used by the mining, demolitions, research and other civil industries. In the realm of chemistry there are other sophisticated concoctions, explosive and otherwise. In this country we have perhaps the largest base of civil expertise and resources in these regards, and this does even touch the base of ex-military people who have their own special knowledge and skills.

The military will not split down the middle. Control of information is pretty good. Those who revolt would be labeled domestic Terrorists. I would bet that 99 in 100 would have shot to kill Timothy McViegh(sp?)

... I think you are misinformed on the first point. While recruits of more recent years are perhaps more likely to have been thoroughly indoctrinated, the older troopers and officer corp tend to have a somewhat broader education. Although not given much attention, it did surface in the mainstream news a couple of times at the start of the current campaign in Iraq (and indeed during the attack on Serbia before) that all is not so rosey between the Pentagon and Washington DC - regardless of which flavor in the WH.

I do agree that the new bogeyman of "terrorists" is being used to turn the mindset of the average trooper both military and civil. But applying this to a nationwide conflict might be very difficult. Most every soldier has a family and an association of "home", somewhere, of some description. I am not persuaded that our military would partake in a unified, roughshod and brutal ride over our entire nation.

There is another scenario though; and that is the case where our own military are engaged almost entirely overseas and in such a depleted state, whereby the use of foreign troops on our soil might be seen as expedient. Now foreigners might not suffer from the same restraints.

[DigitalWarrior]

We are not talking about the whole citizenry. They will only have to go after hundreds of fanatics, who are spread all over the country with splintered communications systems, and many of those systems will be comprimised by agents. Anyone know what I do?

I know it will go like this:
Joe - "Honey, even though I have a good job and a nice life, I am going to join the ranks of the domestic terrorists."
Jane - "Why you gonna do that"
Joe - "Well, it's because I can't even have a bayonet lug on a gun without a pistol grip."
Jane - "But we don't have a gun with a bayonet lug. And who is going to pay for lisa's wedding?"
Joe - "But it isn't about paying bills or anything like that. It is about Principals, it is about freedom."
Jane - "You are right, lets get Lisa and give her a gun to help you out."
Joe - "Let's go"
Jane - "Who exactly are we going to kill?"
Joe - "We'll figure it out."

[DigitalWarrior]

I heard a great litmus test for "Revolt" a while back.

Get your rifle and run out on your front lawn. If your neighbors get their rifles and meet you on your lawn, it is time. If they shoot you, it isn't time yet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will say this to be perfectly clear. If you are standing still for 45 seconds while opposing a modern military you will be killed. Whether it is a unit flanking you, or the gunship overhead, or artillery is unimportant. What is important is that your fillings will be treated ballisticly as shrapnel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[DigitalWarrior]

I am reminded of the people who have a gun in the home and say that if there is ever a robber "Kablowwee".

There is no consideration that the rifle is unloaded `in the safe in the workshop across the hall, or that the round is likely to pass into the neighbor's house. There is no consideration of the legal ramifications. There is no consideration of where to stand for best cover. No real plan. Just "Kablowwee".

I do not criticize the idea that it might be necessary. I criticize that they are planning to fail. I take issue with the fact that no one is seriously considering the unintended consequences of their actions.

[LAK]

DigitalWarrior,

I think your Joe and Jane are not going to breach the hypothetical. The true "domestic terrorist" would probably have a stronger axe to grind than that, real or imagined, and be alittle more imaginative in their action.

The "revolt" is not going to get beyond the hypothetical for several reasons, and I would extend the same preclusions to Joe and Jane.

Where the friction is likely to occur are the piecemeal takedown of individuals and perhaps some groups who run afoul of the maze of laws governing various firearms in various jurisdictions either through ignorance, obstinacy or increasingly colorful "interpretations" of the law. But I do not see these people as "fanatics" who will go on the offensive.

There are some real odd groups who I would put in a different catagory. They are usually popularly pigeonholed as "militia","rightwing extremists" or with various "racist" implications; like some of the people Timothy McVeigh was associated with, and infiltrated by people like Carol Howe for the BATF. These people are not "patriots", and their root founders, funding and foreign connections always seem to "dissappear" when one of their members or associates gets nailed for an actual crime - or at least those details never seem to get beyond a cursory explanation. I would catagorize these groups largely as agent provocateurs. But who actually pull their strings is another issue, and a good question.

[WilderBill]

My point in the snake analogy is that we are the snake and don't intend to get stepped on.
Of course, our rattle is greater than our bite, but still should be headed when it comes to the .gov taking that last step.
It's also worth noting that the same snake would try the same tactic if it were a tank heading for him on that trail...with far less sucess.

If ever it comes down to it, remember that failure to plan is planning to fail.
Also, if you are planing, don't tell me. I might sell you out. You don't know.

[dadman]

LAK:
There are some real odd groups who I would put in a different catagory. They are usually popularly pigeonholed as "militia","rightwing extremists" or with various "racist" implications; like some of the people Timothy McVeigh was associated with, and infiltrated by people like Carol Howe for the BATF. These people are not "patriots", and their root founders, funding and foreign connections always seem to "dissappear" when one of their members or associates gets nailed for an actual crime - or at least those details never seem to get beyond a cursory explanation. I would catagorize these groups largely as agent provocateurs. But who actually pull their strings is another issue, and a good question.
Yep. Chew on that awhile.
The memories of yesteryear.

[2nd Amendment]

Digital, it seems as if you are trying hard to convince yourself.

IF a revolution comes "they" will have to go after several million at a minimum. Just 3% of the country is over 8 million people. And that isn't even ten percent of gun owners. It is, however, still several times the number of ANY force that can be brought to bear against them. And, of course, they would have family and friends and "hangers-on" and those willing to give "aid and comfort". Also there's a growing segment of people who distrust anything related to the labels the government trots out. Label them "domestic terrorists" and you immediately increase their appeal.

Nobody would "oppose a modern military". At least not at first. There are too many soft targets...

Lak, having been with the militia across the midwest since '96, your observation appears to show a clear lack of knowledge. As in, utter. Again, you appear to be trying to convince yourself...

Again I'll ask the question I asked Wild: Do you folks think the US will endure forever? That is: All Eternity? Apparently so because if not then it's a fairly safe bet there will be revolution, sooner or later, for one reason or another. It may well not happen in our lifetimes or even for reasons we currently see but it WILL happen. :rolleyes:

[dadman]

I don't think LAK is broadbrushing every group.

He gives a couple examples of individuals/groups who were handled.
It may suprise some on how much handling has and does go on.

Some groups from the 90's( and maybe presently?) had some interesting members, strange actions, and unusual associations.
Used to be a website or two that gave detailed reports on groups/individuals that were busted and HOW. Those busted were unaware or too stupid to realize what was happening.
Talk about that at your next meeting or training.

What does this have to do with the original "Revolt" topic?
If someone calls for action, look at their track record, and see if they'll lead the way or do they prod others on.
Ask them what their goals are, how and when to do it, who will support it, what are the possible outcomes.
Usually, the cry for revolt comes too hastily from frustrated individuals before patiently trying and exhausting other options.

[Sam Adams]

Why are people saying "revolt"? Especially in relation to the RKBA?

Because no nation is forever, certainly not as it was originally intended. Rome is a perfect example, a relatively free nation (if you weren't a slave that is) that became one of the worst dictatorships ever.

My paternal grandfather left Russia in 1923 at the age of 22. He told my father and I that when he was young everyone KNEW that the Czar was forever - and the fact that the Romanovs celebrated 300 years in power in 1912 only cemented the opinion. We all know what happened 5 years later. My GF often told that story to my father in the '40's and '50's, when he was all puffed up about how strong the US was.

The point here being that our nation has strayed very far from what was intended by the Founding Fathers. They revolted against a less oppressive government than we have now, and would undoubtedly be horrified beyond belief if they were suddenly resurrected.

Why guns? Simple: it is the last symbol and tool of freedom. When someone or a government wants to take away your gun, he/it wants to take away your freedom, and quite probably a lot more than that - because the gun is far from the last thing that will be taken. Just ask the Jews of pre-war Germany...oh, yeah, we can't do that, because they were SLAUGHTERED after giving up their arms.

I'll never give up my weapons, not while there's life left in me. Not as a Jew, not as an American and not as a human being. I present a threat to no one, but anyone who wants to eliminate my right to self defense presents a mortal threat to me - and I hope that I have the guts and the wisdom to react appropriately (along with a few million of my fellow gun owners, if the circumstances warrant). And, no, I'm not calling for revolution or violence now. I'm just saying that if a war upon our liberties becomes a hot war, then those who start it shouldn't be surprised if a lot of people fight back - and I wouldn't lift a finger to oppose such freedom fighters.

[LAK]

2nd Amendment,

Dadman apparently understood what I stated better than yourself. Many of those groups are handled.

On a strictly practical level most of these groups lack leadership. There are certainly capable people out there, but how many of them occupy leadership positions in how many groups is another matter.

Local unorganzied militias are a good idea; the Bush administration ought to call them into national service under Title 10 Section 311 USC and scrap the "Americorp" and other HS nonsense. But people need to make sure they know both the professional credentials and the "background" of the group founders and leaders.

[RealGun]

The rattler analogy is very useful. Awareness of the possible presence of a rattler and the knowledge of its capabilities creates a sort of cold war. The rattle means the snake is considering a strike, a reminder to leave it alone. Everything is status quo as long you keep your distance.

Another cold war analogy is the actual cold war of nuclear weapon capability. You have nukes but would rationally use them in only the most extreme of circumstances, which are actually hard to comprehend considering the likely consequences. But the preparedness is there and the posture is serious.

It seems to me that acknowledging the possibility of revolt and maintaining the means and methods to accomplish it is necessary for a cold war standoff with government. The problem is whether the means and methods are real enough to be taken seriously and to maintain ones position in any cold war scenario.

To rule out revolt would be to say that the 2A has no purpose. One person's defiance is suicide, yet large numbers of really upset, armed citizens acting with some level of organization and with patriotism in mind is an honorable "revolt".

On the subject of a free state, I think that is a reasonable path of least resistance to secure a place where someone could feel that their liberties were preserved. I can see all kinds of problems with the concept, but it could be the seed of something much grander. I would be concerned about corruption of the premise and what the real agenda might be of large wings of any such movement. For example, there is an organization that wants to secede and reestablish the Old South way of life, probably to include segregation and a fundamentalist Christian religion. All this could be cloaked in some high toned rhetoric concerning "liberty".

[cpileri]

You dont need to 'oppose the modern military', although count on running into them.
Of course a single person, or even a well prepared group, dont stand a chance against the FULL MIGHT of the modern USArmy.
The problem is that the FULL MIGHT of the Army is so destructive it cannot be used to suppress a revolt or do anything except annihilate. That's why the Iraqis are pciking people off one by one.
if we unleashed on them, there would be nothing left to occupy, nothing to rebuild, no infrastructure to profit from- just sand.
Similarly, the suppressing Armed forces will not utterly destroy, say, Los Angeles or any major economic or cultural point in the states to put down a revolt as the consequences to our future economic stability and power are too great.
Makes no sense to oppress and control a worthless country. Anybody really care about being dictator and lord high master of... Bahrain?

"Whew, Bill, that sure seemed to work, didn't it?"
"Yeah, Al. We nuked Washington,DC after luring all the revolutionaries here. Pretty good trick, huh?"
"What's that, Janet? Whaddaya mean we have no commerce, unsecured reserves, unoperational codes to the rest of the nukes, no food, and no water???? Ooops."

A successful revolt is just enough to get the oppressor to back off.

be the mosquito in the yard. No chance one on one, but enough little bites and the mosquito still gets you to leave the yard.

C-