A modest proposal in answer to Homer ...,er.... Daniel Simpson

Not open for further replies.


Jan 3, 2003
A five inch group at 300 yards is within the rifle's capability.

* * *
Our modest counter-proposal posits the following:

1. Like the American Revolution, one third of populace will side with the King, one third with the opposition and one third will blow with the wind and take what comes. Of the resistant third, less than a third of those will risk anything to give form to their beliefs, thus only about ten or so percent of the population, roughly 30 million citizens, will actively support the folks who will engage Dan's "special squads". (You know the Nazis called their special squads "Einsatzgruppen.") In the Revolution, the active combatants, Continentals and militia, only amounted to 3% of the population. That would be about 10 million anti-confiscation guerrillas. Alternatively, we could use 10% of American gun owners as a good rule of thumb, and that would be just 8.5 million. But let's make it even tougher on ourselves. Let us say for the sake of argument that as a result of liberal media propaganda and the cumulative deleterious effect of liberal government schools, just one percent of American gun owners would fall into the "cold dead hands" category: that's a mere 850 thousand. These would be the hard core-- the men and women who know how to kill at range, and who, with their scoped .30-06 deer rifles can out-range and out-shoot the M16 rifles and 9mm submachine guns of Dan's American Einsatzgruppen.
* * *

Read it all at:

Careful What You Wish For I
  • Most Common: Incident (a riot or stand-off is not a revolution).
  • Less Likely: Failed revolution.
  • Rare: Successful revolution -- but that makes things worse.
  • Near Miraculous: Successful revolution -- and that makes things better.
Likelihood decreases down the list with the last being almost impossible.

Revolution is fools gold. It was a near miracle that 1776 both succeeded and made things better.

Best we work to simultaniously save our liberties and avoid revolution because no matter how much we might wish it, most times, liberty and revolution are enemies of each other.

"Liberté, égalité, fraternité -- chop off everyone's head!"

Careful What You Wish For II

Uprisings -- including our own revolution -- work best when they involve the people attempting to oust a foreign enemy, be it the Redcoats in Virginia or U.S. Marines in Vietnam.

Uprisings of the sort proposed here (ousting a domestic "enemy") typically are bloody, pointless messes that if successful -- GREAT BIG HONKING IF -- typically make matters worse, like the various Communist revolutions of the 20th century.

Careful What You Wish For III

Revolutions are almost never self sustaining. They require aid from the rivals of the target goverment, who often shape the revolution to their goals

Now which rival of the USA would be best allies? The Chinese? The radical Muslims?
Read the Turner Diaries...

It is a racist book...no doubt of that. But it does illustrate what a revolution could be like, and it isn't pretty.

For those of you who haven't read it, the revolution is sparked by gun confiscation. In fact, the revolutionaries use gun confiscation to further their goals.

I do think if the feds tried what Simpson proposed, it would fragment the country (you think those folks from Montana and Idaho...other western states, would stay in the union?). It's pretty obvious democracy wouldn't survive.

I'd be curious to read any responses sent to the newspaper the first published Simpson's proposal.
I'd have to take issue with the Idea that most of the end-of-communism revolutions made things worse on the whole. I lived in and travelled in numerous post-communist republics-- Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, russia, tajikstan, Kyrgyzia, Turkmenistan-- in the era immediately following the end of the soviet union. Even met the heads of state of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Things were rough, no doubt, much as they were after the American revolution, but not all of that coud be blamed on the revolutions. Much of it was the cause of revolution.

And sometimes things were bloody, too. But it was clearing the way for these places to move forward, which they were doing and continued to do. The only people who wanted the old ways back were the ones who had lead a priveleged life under them-- and even most of that class were not looking back.
1) I said communist revolutions, not end-of-communisim revolutions. I agree that the end of communism was a good thing.

2) The violence that accompanied the end of communism in the various *SSRs was not revolution, IMO. Rather, it involved various factions -- some pro-communist, some anti-communist -- attempting to fill the void left by the collapsing/collapsed Soviet Union.

The difference
  • Revolution -- people rise up CAUSING the government to change/collapse.
  • End of USSR -- the government collapses CAUSING the people rise up.
Whether revolutions are good or bad depends on who is participating in them.

Revolutions are IMO more the result of vast political miscalculation. Think of the magnitude of stupidity that produces the 94-96 election fiasco for the Democrats. Consider how much worse a miscalculation would be necessary to encourage widespread violence. It can happen, but it isnt likely because politicians like their comfortable jobs.
Careful What You Wish For I

* Most Common: Incident (a riot or stand-off is not a revolution).
* Less Likely: Failed revolution.
* Rare: Successful revolution -- but that makes things worse.
* Near Miraculous: Successful revolution -- and that makes things better.

I disagree, at least based on the 'what if' of flat out gun grabbing squads. That would probably mobilize people more, if they have a visible enemy.
Not open for further replies.