america is an armed society.
every year a huge number of americans take to the woods in pursuit of deer, elk and other critters of the fur, feathers and flesh persuasion. and, if you read hunting magazines and gun magazines, you will well recognize that they are armed with very sophisticated weapons, in some measure, such as optics and ballistic aids, the rival of the most modern military organizations.
so, say that america erupts in rebellion against the gun confiscation measures being cooked up by obama and minions, apparently to be spearheaded in congress by the likes of pelosi, reid, feinstein and others of that ilk. senator feinsteins pronouncements relative to her legislative aims include words like "confiscation," and "registration," long despised and detested words among pro-gun americans.
if she wanted to "press some buttons," she's pressed some buttons.
what can we view as the likely model of american insurrection?
update: this post is linked at http://middleoftheright.blogspot.com/2012/12/siddownpour-yerself-cuppa-joe.html , dated december 28, 2012. this post is the link at the very bottom of his article. i didn't link the post just to tell you i'd been linked. there is a very interesting and cogent section of the article that discusses the mathematics of resistance to firearms confiscation. the gist of it is, while the combined police forces of the state & federal gub'm't's have a lot of people and guns, so do we, and we have the ability to mount a massive and successful insurrection, if we need to in order to assert our liberties, and protect our heritage. end update.
update no. 2, 01.07.2012: this post has probably "done more traffic" than any other i have ever posted, and because of this i have been exposed to very many fine blogs and wonderfully written posts. were i on the other side of things, in other words, were i a leftist zealot supporter of obama and his wanna be thugs, the reaction to the gun grab proposals (as noted in these articles) would give me a certain amount of pause.
none more so than what i am going to link for you. not because of the strength of its rhetoric or zeal, ..., but in a way, quite the opposite. the following article is not a polemic, rather it is a very quiet and measured appraisal of the ethical issues raised by a person faced with enforcement of gun legislation, and of the moral and ethical duties imposed by someone faced by this issues of "gun confiscation" on his porch, and at his door.
it is the well reasoned and measured belief of this writer that he faces a moral, ethical and religious duty to confront oppression with resistance, up to and including lethal force, within the context of any efforts to confiscate his weapons.
"if they come for your guns, do you have a moral responsibility to fight," by dean garrison at "the dc clothesline," posted jan 3, 2013. http://dcclothesline.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/if-they-come-for-your-guns-do-you-have-a-responsibility-to-fight/ . mr. garrison's answer is "yes," it is your duty and moral responsibility as an upholder of the constitution, and of our history and heritage, to fight illegal authority whenever confronted by it. it is an answer i thoroughly endorse. end update.
at this blog, http://wintersoldier2008.typepad.com/summer_patriot_winter_sol/2010/06/-to-not-resist-aggression-it-is-immoral-.html, june 12, 2010, by this writer.
well, it won't be along the lines of major tank battles on open terrain, such as witnessed recently in the middle east. syrians, iraqis, egyptians, hezbollah and hamas have proved it foolhardy to go up against the modern armor of the west, principally the armies of the u.s. and israel.
fighting modern armies on open terrain is a rather foolhardy proposition, unless you are the top of the military food chain.
no, i believe that the model of conflict in the middle east as we have witnessed the last several years during the "arab spring" and other insurrections provides the proper intellectual modality to anticipate the outlines of such conflict by civilians against an established and entrenched regime.
the fighting in syria, and in lybia is illustrative. and, we have no further to turn than chechnya to witness a fight carried on by a determined populace against a very strong and very well equipped modern military.
the fighting will be in small scale conflict in urban and suburban environs, with the persons conducting the insurrection attacking fixed governmental installations, and then retreating back into the cover of the environment when its damage has been inflicted. and, as between political elements in society, the fighting will be much like has been exhibited in iraq for the last 5 or 6 years, as the various groups have engaged in kidnappings and street assassinations of their opponents. this will be waged citizen to citizen, if it comes to that.
the fighting against the forces of the establishment and government shall be directed against visible but vulnerable members of the military and civilian police, chiefly the command elements. (for reasons discussed later.)
the fighting between civilians shall be in the form of assassination of prominent members of society, the media, entertainment, and the members of the media attacking and defending the government. someone walks on the street, a car pulls up, a fusillade, and a body drops to the ground. the prominent are attacked in their homes, in their work, in the broadcast studio.
in short, those who fight the repression of government shall do so much as terrorist do so now.
as this goes on, we find the answer to the central conceptual issue.
and that is, just how entrenched are the forces of american government, and just how much loyalty to the government trying to enforce gun control, and all the other forces of societal control that lies behind it?
ghaddafi looked pretty solid when the various rag tag groups took after him. assad looked pretty strong. and, the mullahs in iran proved surprisingly weak against the forces of protest that took after them, until the actions of barack hussein obama shored them up enough to survive the attack.
what is key here, is how do the various armed forces, military and civilian end up supporting the obama regime if it comes to that. when those forces start to quit the field because they don't want to fight their brothers and cousins, when they don't want to infringe upon ancient liberties, then the unassailable might of the regime becomes very assailable.
the fight is actually on right now.
it is an intellectual and emotional battle.
obama propounds gun control standing amid the graves of children killed by a lunatic in connecticut. this will be the government's stand.
so far, i think the government loosing. despite all of the emotional gravitas given its position, and bulwarked by the deaths of these children, i don't sense an overwhelming groundswell of public opinion to confiscate weapons.
except amongst the literati and the cognoscenti and the mass media. they are behind obama all the way. they are to be considered the propaganda arm of the obama regime, plain and simple. no "media" passes in this conflict.
just as in the middle east, as the arab/muslims and israelis vie for the upper hand with the media, this will be a battlefield in an american insurrection over gun control. and, because the media and entertainment types are allied with obama, they will be viewed as members of the regime trying to impose gun control, and they will become targets of insurrection as any other minion of the regime.
the attrition among the media and the talking head types should be considerable in my estimation. they will be targeted, and little mercy shall be shown them. in my estimation, there is not much love for them in the public, ... , even little katie kouric is despised.
it shall be an intellectual battle, along with considerable blood being shed. (yes, i know that is oxymoronic, but, that is the way it is, ... , the political/propaganda/and provo arms of the insurrection walk in lockstep.) the regime shall burst through doors in the night, and try to spread terror & intimidation among the populace, as the forces of tyranny have done the entire 20th century. the insurrection shall target senior command, and will target news reporters and anchors and t.v. executives, even as it tries to woe the common soldier in the ranks.
it shall be bloody, and vicious, and no quarter shall be given.
the undertakers will profit.
john jay @ 12.27.2012
p.s. and, when it is done, and the regime defeated, no one will talk about what he did in the war. it shall have been terrible, and brutal. executions, murders, assassinations and the inevitable collateral damage shall be the issue of the day.
this is the price that those who attempt to impose a totalitarian regime in the america's shall face. many of us will die. and, some shall become iconic photos hanging from lamp posts, stripped naked and hoisted by their ankles, as final witness and testimony to their arrogance.
those who seek to take our weapons trifle with history, heritage and firmly held belief. and, it should be remembered, those of us who believe this way are god fearing, and shall invoke and beseech our god for support. we have a religious underpinning and faith that shall carry us through this, as opposed to those who seek to suppress us. they have nothing but naked ambition to sustain them.
do obama, pelosi, and feinstein have the stomach for this sort of conflict? are they willing to initiate in order to try and gain the rule they aspire to? we shall find out.
and, i am pretty convinced that they shall find out, too, and in spades. (i think it machiavelli who first made the sage observation, based on moses i think, that the prophet seldom lives to see the promised land. something for all "prophets" to keep in mind, surely. be careful, where you try to lead a surly people. if my history is off, please correct me.)