When is it time to resist force with force?

[brianidaho]

Let me start this discussion out by saying that I do not advocate armed attack on federal officers, nor an armed insurrection. Having said that...

I finished reading Unintended Consequences again a couple of weeks back, and it has me thinking about a few things. One of the questions Henry Bowman asks one of his professors is (I'm paraphrasing, lent the book out already) how do we know when its time to resist a government that is out of control, and a danger that can no longer be ignored or countered by peaceful means. During the 1930's, Jews and others in Hitler's Germany did not resist, and the results are to awful to contemplate (Warsaw Ghetto uprising not withstanding). Same situation in Stalin's USSR, and China after the Communist revolution.

In the recent past here we have the following signals that at the least are attention getters:

-Laws that allow federal law inforcement to commit crimes against civilians, with no punishment or accountability. See Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Lawmaster raid. Regularly innocent people are being shot and killed in local, state and federal raids. In these cases a very small percentage of LEO are prosecuted on the local level, not sure if ever at the federal level. Please do not take this as a tirade against LEO's, I respect the vast majority.

-Seizure and asset forfiture laws where a persons livelyhood or lifes work are seized essentially on the whim of the authorities. Citizens have to prove they are innocent, not the other way around. Attempting to reclaim your own property can break you with legal fees.

-Environmental regulations, enforced in such a way that they devalue property people have spent their live paying for. "Common good" laws that allow property seizure without just compensation.

-Restrictions on RKBA and right to self defense to numerous to go into.

-Numerous regulations that give government employees a level of privlage and power not bestowed upon common citizens. (are there any federal employees NOT granted the right to carry where they choose?)

I really need to get my thoughts in order on this topic, and will elaborate more tomorrow. Anyway, any thoughts are appreciated.

Brian

 

[yankytrash]

In my opinion, governmental resistance goes in steps. The third case in this step, being the time to step in and commit to whichever side on you're on.

1) Anarchist - An anarchist or other person who believes their rights are being infringed has to start. As with all movements, it has to start somewhere. Sometimes it's a loon, sometimes it's a guy like you and I. If you want to start the revolution, you'll know. People that are unsure do not start revolutions.

2) Mob Mentality - At this point, the anarchist has gotten a few followers and/or believers. At this point certain small actions can be committed, but nothing that would be considered 'government crushing'. At this point, actions taken only draw more support or enemies of your cause. Also known as terrorism.

3) Revolution - If the cause has drawn approximately 1/3 the population, you can hope to get to this step. This group has a large enough amount of supporters to really do some damage. Although the percentage of the supporting population is less than half, there is always a percentage that does not get involved. A revolution without the majority of the population's support cannot keep a government. They might rule it for awhile, but the people will only stand for it for so long. With support of the revolutions cause, refer to steps 1-3.


Although this is over-simplified, the steps have definite merit when you compare them to historical movements.

In these steps, support is a strong word. Support has to go beyond, "ya- you're right." The support has to be "YA- DAMN RIGHT! LET's GO! WHAT CAN I DO TO HELP?!" There are plenty of issues out there that people agree with, but agreement alone does not get results. Revolution can only come about with whole-hearted, stand-up-and-take-action support of the majority.
The actions and ambitions of a few thousand are only the first step or two.

 

[Tom B]

I believe it has already begun. It is written off as moral decay and a sign of the times by LE but now a motorist is held at gunpoint (almost) when stopped for a traffic violation. Why? Because alot of shooting is going on! Many say "why did he attempt to shoot the LEO when he really wasn't a wanted person and was only stopped for speeding?" It happened near here recently when a soldier was stopped for speeding and shot it out with LEOs. He had no other charges against him. Why do Fed employees in many of the western states now go armed? I am not talking about police types. On Sunday I watched two Ga State Police in two cars stopping speeders together. A new one for me! As civil liberties continue to be eroded you will see more shootings and resistance IMO. These are not always drug dealers as LEO would have you believe. I see less and less support for the government and its employees at all levels. Maybe this is what is needed for a "wake up call!"

 

[PreserveFreedom]

When my neighbors assemble to begin fighting, I will assemble with them. I'll only do it alone for the defense of myself or my family. In either situation, I will not hesitate.

 

[Don Gwinn]

It's a sticky one. I will err on the side of coming in a little too late rather than a little too early. I draw my personal line at the belief that there are no options left except violence. As long as I believe I have recourse through the courts, through the political process, etc., I won't resort to violence.

Of course, the scary part about that idea is that everyone has different perceptions of when the options are cut off.

 

[KSFreeman]

Brian, you missed the point of the book. Time to fight is when you are able and see the train coming even though you would prefer to stay on your property in Missouri and shoot wood in a rock quarry and have Cindy Caswell over to visit. Offer them your teeth and claws, not your belly. We all want to be left alone and shoot with our friends and will rationalize and hide from what is to come as we see in OZ or the UK. I do everyday as my practice grows and I get older and more comfortable and more aware of my mortality. I want to build my dream house, find a wife and shoot my guns with my friends until I pass out of exhaustion.

However, to butcher Patrick Henry in his speech to the anti-Independence House of Burgess in Old Virginny: When will we fight if not now? When we are totally disarmed and helpless. Is life so sweet to be purchased at the price of slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!

 

[Dangus]

I agree on some level with Tom B. I think it is correct to say that social decay has started, and that a revolution of sorts is brewing. The danger now is not that we will cause this revolution, but that we will be disarmed and unable to control it. If guns are outlawed, the only ones that may rebel will be those ruthless enough to sell drugs, slaves, murder for hire, etc. to get the money to smuggle in weapons. The danger if we are disarmed is that only he bad guys will have guns, and I think we need to keep that concept in mind.

I think that Tom B's point, while valid, is not as clearly put as I think it should be... I believe what he is saying, and what I agree with, is that there is a palpable tension in the atmosphere of this nation, and that people are starting to snap. We have a population growing unchecked, we have laws growing unchecked. We are on our way to becoming China, and I think people feel that, like a collar that is too stiff, they know it's not right, but when they check it it "seems" like it's loose enough. Our music is sadder, angerier. Our TV and games are more violent. Our drugs are used in less innocent ways. Hell, we can't even have a Woodstock these days without people dying. This country is falling apart. When it comes right down to it, we have less and less personality as states each year, and yet we find that we have less and less in common with our fellow Americans. If it was 2001 AD and all the states were seperate countries, can any of you really picture most of the states even wanting to join a union with each other? Honestly I can't. Go to a third-world country, people have distinct cultural identities. In those tribes they weave cloth a certain way, make certain kinds of foods, but here we wear shirts with company logos on them and eat foods that are shrink wrapped and sold to us for as cheap as we can get it for. There are nations where people are starving and those people would kill for a steak, and here we have vegitarians that hate our farmers for killing "those poor animals".

To quote Tyler Durden, "F*** Martha Stewart! She's polishing brass on the Titanic. It's all going down." The only reason the people of this nation stay together as a union is because if they tried to do otherwise they would be attacked and killed, or because they are hanging on to some dream that "America" really exists and isn't just a collection of disassociated subcultures that are themselves falling apart in an attempt to be part of the whole. In the 50s people were so hyped up on post-war patriotism and so scared of the evil red cloud hanging over their heads that they were ready to believe that America really was this magical place where all the rules didn't apply and where people just all lived together in harmony because that was the American thing to do. Then of course Vietnam came and shot that in the ass with a nice big double barrel 12 gauge. I honestly think that shock of that war and all the lies and bs around it are still to this very day eating away at what America tried so hard to be. Once we no longer had the Nazis to fight, and once we got bored with hating Communists with every waking thought, we woke up and looked around and said "who the hell are these people". That's what Fight Club is about, and yet it's also a warning. See, in that movie, Jack snaps, he waits too long and lets too many things in his life go crappy because he is too scared to take control and be what he wants to be, so he has to have Tyler do it, but Tyler ends up making things just as bad as they were before, worse even. This is why I think if we wait until we are unable to fight back, the ones who finally end up doing so will seem our salvation but end up our downfall. Kind of like those poor fools in Cuba who thought Castro was gonna save everyone from the horrid government that they had at the time. There are lessons to be learned there.

 

[Dave R]

I believe the time for force is after the legal and political options have been exhausted. I think we are not doing nearly as much as we could be doing with the legal and political options. Where we have pushed effectively, we have seen some good results. TRT, Pink Pistols, swing statesd in the last election, CCW wins this year, Bush/Ashcroft victory over the UN small arms forum, etc.

If the the nations 80 million gun owners could get united (as opposed to 3 million NRA members), we can avoid any need for violence.

But we have a lot of work to do.

 

[hammer4nc]

My recollection of the Unintended Consequences storyline, was that a very small group of activists retaliated against a specific segment of the govt. that was out of control.

A key point: the characters had the communications savvy to explain to the public their grievances and neutralize the invevitable demonization that was focused on them, once bad things started happening. The book portrayed the "info-war" (to win the hearts and minds of joe sixpack) as effectively convincing a majority of people that their cause was just. As the movement gained support, the govt. execs (with their polling expertise), realized they were fighting a losing PR battle, and capitulated to the movement's demands.

To me, this is very different from a widespread revolution (a la yankee trash's scenario)...the existing govt. stayed in power (albeit purged). The baby was not thrown out with the bathwater. This aspect of the novel was intriguing, IMO.

To reality: Yes, increasingly govt. agents are armed, as they have drawn the battle lines against more and more ordinary citizens. In various confrontations discussed in this forum, (Klamath Falls, income tax protests, most recently coming to mind), are the seeds for escalation to nationwide popular awareness, and more activism.

I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

 

[Al Norris]

Dave R. said,
I believe the time for force is after the legal and political options have been exhausted. I think we are not doing nearly as much as we could be doing with the legal and political options.

I don't believe that the average person has enough money to pursue a legal recourse, as the deck is stacked against them. The same reasoning applies to political recourse. We simply don't have enough wampam to get recognition. As to getting together, uniting, it simply won't happen. How many different 2A groupd do we have now? And they are effective in what way? Diversity is killing us. We have been divided and are in the process of being conquered.

A major part of the problem is that it simply isn't 2A rights that are being squelched. Of the articles in the BOR, the only right not being attacked on all fronts would be the 3rd article (and even this right has suffered in recent history). And none of us seem to want to get together with other advocates of other rights. Why? Because they don't believe as we do? If the rights that are recognized (and those that are implied) by the BOR are hinged upon the 2nd as being the force that holds them, then it behoves us to get involved with other groups. It doesn't matter one wit whether these others believe what we do about the second. All that is necessary is that they agree that all of the BOR are restrictions upon the Government; that rights are not granted by the BOR and hence the government. They predate the existance of our government. This is explicitly stated in the preamble of the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Contrary to what the legalists would have us believe, this document is a legal definition to those rights enumerated or not, that we, the people hold up within the bounds of the Constitution. Any attorney, judge or legiscritter that would argue otherwise is either ignorant of the precedents of our governments beginnings or is an outright liar.

John Ross set up a plausible scenario as to how we get back to the business of having a constitutional republic. With all the combined abuses, I don't think that scenario is likely. Because of the undercurrent of unrest we are experiencing, I think we will see more and more isolated instances of outright rebellion. I shudder to think of where this will ultimately lead. Having just wrote this, I am however prepared should TSHTF. As are many where I live.

What we have at the moment however, is hope. There appears to be a turning in the thinking of the powers that be: ala Ashcroft. It's a start.

 

[bookkie]

One thing that has always stuck in my mind from studying our founding; We would not have a bill of rights if it were not for those who fought in the war. Between the passage of the constitution and the ratification of the amendments, these men were seen stockpiling, cleaning & practicing with their arms. They were prearing for war in the event that a bill of rights was not passed by the 1st congress. As it has been said before, prepare for war so that you won't have to fight a war.

 

[Dangus]

Bookie, can you cite sources on that please? I find that claim very interesting, I would like to know more.

 

[Scott Conklin]

I don't believe we can have a "selective" revolution. One where the current government remains in place with the Extremist elements purged(Unintended Consequences). The government simply has too large a percentage of those pursuing personal power and glory in high places to let such a thing happen. The actual result would be wholesale elimination of personal Rights, cries of Terrorism and the resulting paranoia and militarization of the police.

No, when it comes it will be ugly and across the board. It will come as a result of a power push from a Dem House and Senate backed by a variety of signed UN treaties and a nice chunk of UN troops. ( I don't care if you disagree, I'm telling you how it will be and that's life.) It will assume aspects of a race war, probably crafted carefully by our own government and the toughest aspect for most of us will be not deciding when to fight but where we're going to try and stand and with whom.

And that's why, without leadership and a vision(which the Founders had and we lack to a shocking degree) we will lose. Lives, property, Rights and our childrens future. All gone. So in my mind what is most important today is NOT when is it time for force, we'll know without any doubt, but rather where do we want to go, what do we want to accomplish, who is going to lead it and why haven't we already put more effort into this aspect of the coming storm?

 

[Don Gwinn]

There are a lot of reasons to put off revolution as long as you possibly can besides having your head in the sand. One is the creation of a power vacuum which, if history is any guide, will probably be filled by would-be dictators as bad or worse than what we deal with now. OK, the American revolution didn't go that way, but we have to look at Russia, China, France, Japan, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. as well. Those revolutions didn't live up to their promises.
Yes, it's possible to avoid that, but it's also possible (much more possible) to accomplish what we want through the electoral process.
No offense, but I don't buy this stuff about "not enough wampam," etc. Being too lazy, disorganized, and disunited to do much of anything does not make it impossible.

 

[Spectre]

War is a dirty, distasteful thing. It's something that rational people avoid if there is any reasonable and honorable alternative.
"Innocent" people are killed by both sides. This is sad, but inevitable.

Historically, only a small percentage of a population can be expected to take arms in a revolution. I have heard 11% cited as the percentage of combatants in the War of Independence.

In guerrilla warfare, outright victory is usually impossible. What typically happens, is that either the guerrillas lose the will to fight, or the government in power does.

The only potential scenario I could envision where this would not be the case would be an attack that would simultaneously target national police and virtually all of the ruling elite. This *could* produce a power vacuum that would hopefully be filled by the few principled politicos wisely left untouched (think Ron Paul). This is just one of many scenarios possible, but perhaps the closest to a "good" one.

Unfortunately (?), in conflict it is entirely possible for everyone to lose. Peaceful remedies should be pursued to their fullest reasonable extent before one clears leather.

 

[deanf]

(are there any federal employees NOT granted the right to carry where they choose?)

Well my wife is a federal employee (probably actually a spy sent by the FBI or BATF to keep track of me) and she certainly hasn't been granted a right to carry anywhere she chooses. The only federal employees who can carry anywhere they want are those that are commissioned as federal law enforcement officers. Probably a sliver of the federal work force.

Should all federal employees be able to carry anywhere they want? Sure, and so should everybody else.

I believe it has already begun.

The implication being that the public at large is starting to become fed-up with encroachments on our rights on all levels. Unfortunately, I think that we in the RKBA movement see ourselves as representative of society as a whole. I don't think this is true at all. We who truly value liberty are a very small minority, without much true influence in this society. Let me give you a little example:

My wife was recently involved in an auto accident. When she called me from the scene, I made sure she understood that she was not to make any statement to anyone about how the accident happened, particularly the police. When I got to the scene, the officer began to question her about how the accident happened. I told him that she was not going to be making any statements about how the accident happened. He asked me why I was giving him "trouble". I told him it was nothing personal, but she wasn't going to be making any statements. He then approached me and accused me of getting in his face. I had remained stationary from the beginning. Finally he threatened me with arrest if I did not go back to my car. I did. My wife had to lie to fulfill my wishes that she not make any statement.

Later I was discussing this incident with my wife's sister, who was there. She thought I was completely in the wrong for being somewhat insistent (although polite) that my wife not make any statement. She is a soccer mom. She and the soccer dads are who run this country. It's their opinion of how things are going that determines the future of this country. She and the rest of the soccer parents see no problem with the direction this country is going, and they never will. And they are the majority. There never will be any sort of "wake up call" in this country. Too few of us are concerned with real freedom to make any difference. There will never be a revolution, or any substantive physical resistance. Too few people really care about what happens to their country.

 

[longeyes]

deanf

Soccer moms and dads live in a fantasy world where suburbia and shopping malls live happily ever after. All it would take for a wake-up call is a few missed paychecks; that's how far most people are from "the wolf."

 

[deanf]

All it would take for a wake-up call is a few missed paychecks;

Yes, how true. Once the paychecks stopped, they'd expect the government to step in. Making waves with a revolution or such might tend to distupt the flow of slop into the government trough.

 

[ctdonath]

The book series "Breakdown of Democratic Regimes" by Juan Linz might be a real good start in figuring this question out. Anyone know where I can find this set?

 

[MatthewM]

Brian, all your points are "right on the money" and irrefutable.

PreserveFreedom has it the same.
-------
The "Bill of Rights" says that it is a partial listing of "God Given" "Unalienable" rights.

Governments can pass laws against these rights and can harrass you about them. However, you still have them.
-------

I personally give more thought to my gun safe being hidden from the government than from burglars. We will buy another pistol and ammo with our tax refund check. We buy 2 rounds of ammo for every one shot, and always will. All choices of firearms are given partial thought to true self protection, not from burglars. ie, if I lived in the country and had the money, I would add a 50BMG to my list. Reaches beyond the .223 they use.
--------

If you made it through that huge book, make your next one "Atlas Shrugged". Nothing, and everything to do with this discussion and the best writing style and message I've ever read. When you find out a person is socialist, don't do business with them. Don't vote for them. Shun them.
---------

In "Patriots: Surviving the comming collapse" it is pointed out that you should think of such things as limiting your guns to common cartridges.
ie, buy several 9mm and don't buy a .380. Own a Ruger Mark II and a 10/22 and CASES of ammo. Good for self defense and survival hunting as well.
--------
I have a 1911 and four diff .22lr. Going to add a Rem700 .223. An .45 and an accurate .223 arm you a lot better than many foot soldiers in WWI or WWII.
--------

*As always, I remind you all to take kids and adults who have never shot with you to the range on most every visit. Change the world one person at a time!