Posted on 09/08/2004 9:42:10 PM PDT by Stew Padasso
[See Braveheart if you want to understand the concept of being free and unbeaten even if you are in chains.]
The deaths at Waco and Ruby Ridge were the direct result of Weaver and Koresh chosing the sword.
What did they achieve? The ATF was empowered. The chains were tightened.
Ghandi succeeded where Braveheart failed - by simply making salt.
100,000,000 consumers have the power... to simply stop consuming.
Supply and Demand.
Any more clarification on this story? It has a slight urban myth quality to it. Hard to imagine the police doing this sort of thing only once, in which case there would have been an outcry. Furthermore, how come the NRA isn't raising hell about it? It sounds like his rights were violated on two counts.
You supply demand argument may be valid. I am not prepared to disagree with it. What I do disagree with is your notion that the right to bear arms as a means to ensure that the people are able to correct an out of control government is obsolete. It may even be that your way is a better one. I think, though, that it is reckless to give up on the right to bear arms.
Also, since you keep using Weaver and Koresh as an example of the futility of keeping and bearing arms, I should mention that these are bad examples. These cases hardly even amounted to civil disobedience, let alone armed revolution. But since we are talking about them, it may be that you are overlooking something. Although I'm apprehensive to even mention his name on this site, let alone in the following context, its hard to bring up Weaver and Koresh as examples the way you have without bringing up McVeigh. If anything, his actions could be arguably described as a one man revolution. I believe that it is not fair to say that Weaver and Koresh's refusal to bow to tyranny amounted to a loss of freedom for all without acknowledging that McVeigh's acts could very well have had a profound effect on the psyche of those who might have otherwise felt safe going on to murder and tyrannize others without pause. In the cases of those who were directly involved in the murders of some of the Koresh followers who were in turn successfully killed by McVeigh, there are at least a few less tyrant murderers in the world. Although both Hillary Clinton and her flunky, Janet Reno, both managed to escape prosecution and execution, they have to at least know that they are lucky that they did and that they might not have been so lucky.
[If anything, his actions could be arguably described as a
one man revolution.]
And was this revolution successful?
The federal seal, "Novus Ordo Seclorum", in place on top of the burial mound at the memorial - 50 feet away from the chain-link fence enclosed "playground" - declares the revolution a failure.
Again - the bureaucratic iron fist was empowered and the grip tightened.
Better to starve it than feed it?
Supply and Demand.
How about making your way a first choice while preserving the right to keep and bear arms in the meantime in case it comes to needing it? I don't know about you, but even if I thought I couldn't win, I'd still want the means to take out a few of those tyrannizing me on my way down. At least I'd die free. Anyway, who's to say that a tyranny couldn't quickly switch from a supply and demand to a command economy? (Assuming I even properly understand what you are advocating.)
BTTT
>>to ensure that the people are able to correct an out of control government is obsolete.
It is the unelected bureucracy that is out of control.
Nazis in the CIA after WWII?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1200286/posts
>>I think, though, that it is reckless to give up on the right to bear arms.
Depending upon the right to bear arms to effect a change in the bureaucracy is self-defeating,IMO.
Once your 100 million man militia is done dismantling the existing hierarchy, who will stop the chi-coms from taking advantage of the chaos?
Bad idea to kill Frankenstein when he's holding up the roof of your house?
This monster must be tamed.
>> I don't know about you, but even if I thought I couldn't win, I'd still want the means to take out a few of those tyrannizing me on my way down.
I suspect that's what Mr. McVeigh thought. But IMO, his actions were selfish and short-sighted. The results were a new fortified OKC federal building and a justification for the passing of more laws to further tighten the grip of the machine...
>>At least I'd die free.
If revolution is part of the game-plan, and you follow that game-plan - are you still free?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=oligarchical+collectivism
>>Anyway, who's to say that a tyranny couldn't quickly switch from a supply and demand to a command economy?
The same thing that prevented the British from murdering the salt-makers:
A moral conscience.
Taking on a government's armed forces at their strongest point, or trying to engage in static defense against such a force, is merely an interesting way to commit suicide. In our own revolution, roughly 3% of the population participated in combat against the British, yet we won. They did it mostly with hit and run operations, slowly bleeding the most powerful nation on earth to death with pinpricks. The later set-piece battles were made possible only with aid from an outside power (France). Oh, and by the way, that 3% had the support of roughly 10 times their number, who helped out in more passive, but nonetheless valuable, ways.
No one seriously argues that 85 million gun owners will simultaneously rise up and throw out a corrupt or tyrannical government - that degree of unity of purpose and coordination are simply not possible, and probably never were. However, selected strikes by highly motivated and skilled people against critical personnel or facilities would have a far greater effect - that's known as force multiplication.
As to the effect of isolated groups of rebels, take a walk down memory lane with me back to October of 2002...remember the Beltway gunmen? 2 nutjobs, with far from the best equipment, one of whom was very unskilled and who so wanted to get caught that he left evidence, and neither of whom exhibited any great intelligence - these 2 miserable creatures killed 10 people and terrorized people over an area of several thousand square miles. Thousands of police from dozens of jurisdictions were looking for them, and it is rumored that some of our spy satellites were even used in the hunt. Yet it still took several weeks to find them (and it wasn't the cops who did it, it was just a simple citizen).
The point here is that the disruption caused by a very small number of people who have good equipment, good plans, intelligence and motivation could paralyze the entire nation and force a government to change its ways. Look, there are roughly 85 million gun owners. Let's say that only 1% of 1% of them - 1 in 10,000 - decides at some point to engage in some kind of targeted fight against the government. That is 8,500 people. One would presume that lots of these would be former military, and therefore highly skilled in choosing targets and in small group operations. They'd probably have good equipment (like, for instance, bolt-action rifles shooting serious rounds like the .308 that are accurate and very lethal at ranges over 500 yards, rather than semi-autos shooting .22 caliber bullets from 50-100 yards away, like the Beltway murderers). They'd probably NOT choose targets at random, but would focus in on critical personnel. No one is going to be fool enough to take on an Abrams tank or an Apache helicopter with a rifle.
The point is that any future rebellion (which I sincerely hope will never be thought necessary by anyone) won't be a few pot-bellied, beer-swilling hicks from Arkansas taking on the Green Berets or one of our armored divisions. Just as the Iraqis have killed more of our soldiers by stealth and guile than in open and "fair" combat, so would a rebel force do the same - unless, that is, you think that the American public is less intelligent and resourceful than the Iraqis.
One more point: actions on the part of the government that would induce several thousand or tens of thousands of people to engage in open and violent revolt would also have other effects. First would be that lots of police and military personnel would be sympathetic to their fellow countrymen; those that take their oath of loyalty to the Constitution seriously would not blindly follow orders. Second, for every 1 person willing to engage in open revolt there are probably between 5 and 10 willing to help out that person by hiding them, buying food or other necessities for them, providing intelligence information, etc. This is another force multiplier.
Our country is, obviously, very divided. The divide isn't geographical, it isn't Republican vs. Democrat or liberal vs. conservative. It is those who produce and contribute to society vs. those who believe and act as if society owes them something. The producers are getting very sick and tired of being bled dry and then being criticized for being the "greedy, selfish rich" when, in fact, they work their tails off and often don't have much left over. That is the problem with all democracies, and always has been: when the electorate finds out that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury, society goes broke and then collapses. This is inevitable, and the only question to be resolved is: When?
Ahh, there you go - THOSE are the people who really damage our system. They either create or (more of the time) take advantage of a problem, in such a way that electing, appointing or hiring them is the only "solution." Until, that is, the "solution" doesn't work and more money or time in office is needed, etc., etc.
No, it’s not inevitable if the citizens gain the awareness and self-discipline that will enable them to master their own appetites. Now, how would Ann Rand go about accomplishing that?
Surely not be brainwashing most of society in the publik skules. This is the biggest factor in my pessimism.
Ahh, there you go - THOSE are the people who really damage our system. They either create or (more of the time) take advantage of a problem, in such a way that electing, appointing or hiring them is the only "solution." Until, that is, the "solution" doesn't work and more money or time in office is needed, etc., etc.
No, it’s not inevitable if the citizens gain the awareness and self-discipline that will enable them to master their own appetites. Now, how would Ann Rand go about accomplishing that?
Surely not by brainwashing most of society in the publik skules. This is the biggest factor in my pessimism.
Sorry about the double post. The second one corrects a typo in the first.
Liberals hate gun ownership not because they abhor violence (as they would have you believe), but rather because gun ownership diminishes the threat of violence to the gun owner.
The left believes private property rights are the culprit; if there were no real private property, or if it were equitably distributed, there would be no crime.
Crime in their view is therefore an understandable response to the inequities of our society by those "victimized" by an unfair system where some people have more than others.
If a person can protect his own private property, he is less likely to submit to political blackmail regarding the redistribution of wealth, and his victimization by a criminal cannot be turned into a referendum on "root causes" of crime because he will be more likely to thwart the crime or kill the perpetrator.
This is intolerable to the left, because it stands in the way of their agenda. Criminalizing gun ownership is merely their way of removing this obstacle.
Nice summary, worth repeating.
Awsome! I love Ayn Rand. When I was in high school a teacher handed me a book of hers. It made me think for the first time in my life. Now, I, the child of big Seattle libs, and a right wing "zealot"
Congratulations on escaping the pseudo-intellectual politics of The Tribe. I was more fortunate in that my folks have always been fairly right-wing (my first trip to a voting booth was when Dad took me into one in 1968 as he voted for Nixon, and he still gives her Hell for voting for Johnson in '64). I have had some interesting "discussions" with my more lieberal relatives, all of whom think that they are religiously required to vote for someone with a "D" after their name.
ahhh then they write a law creating "implied consent" that states you "imply consent to entry without a warrent" when you own a gun.
Why is chicago registering ownership of purchases NATIONALLY?
Who has access to chicagos purchases of texas buyers?
Does California have access to the database?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.