the two main criticisms of insurrection in opposition to obama and gun control are: 1.)it will never get off the ground because it lacks organization & leadership, and 2.)it will destroy the country.
just to cover things, i've seen the same person advance both critiques.
let us dispose of the 2nd criticism first, which seems the proper way to begin, as it seems the easiest notion to dispose of.
the rebuttal to that assertion, is of course, that obama and his ilk advance proposals that will destroy our constitutional union, in the first instance. if insurrection does in fact destroy the country, it will not be because we fought to restore the constitution, the onus and responsibility for that will rest on obama and minions for having initiated the schemes that brought us to war in the first place.
but, i don't think these people focus on ideas, belief, and the rule of law being destroyed. i think their focus is on the material destruction, in terms of business loss, property destruction, and the like. i don't think it will come to that.
and, besides, this issue will not come to consideration, if the insurrection cannot get itself off the ground for the various reasons posited by the critics. the insurrection will not cause any destruction to the larger society at all, if it is killed aborning as claimed by some.
this, by the way, is a fair criticism, in the sense that persons advancing it point to several obvious deficiencies in any nascent undertaking. they note that any insurrection does not have a cohesive or wide spread organizational base, and that this will allow the obama regime to attack and destroy it piecemeal, presumably with military organization & participation.
this is a risk, as there is no national organization, nor state militia, nor military officer corps taking charge of troops, training them, instilling discipline and organizational structure, and instilling military zeal, as was the case in our first civil war. in that civil war, those officers from the seceding states attending west point went home to fight for their native states, as did robert e. lee. in addition, those states had their own military academies, and militias already standing in place: indeed, the armies of the states of the union, and the states of the confederacy, were raised from these militias, and enlistment. and, finally, those states that seceded obvious were committed to a fight with the remaining states in the federal union, in order to secure the permanency of their secession.
the factors that made the south "battle ready" so quickly are simply not present here.
so, it is extremely unlikely that any military organization will rise quickly from the acts of insurrection likely to start as soon as gun confiscation and seizure are announced, or enacted into law.
does this mean that any insurrection is doomed to failure from its initiation, because it cannot mount formal battle against the federal government? i don't think that this negative assessment is compelled, either by way of logic, or by the lessons of history.
in the first instance, i don't think it is assured that the military would fight against a populace that had wide general support for resisting gun confiscation and seizure as attempted to be imposed by the federal government. obama is, quite simply, detested at all levels of the military, and the military owes its allegiance to the constitution, and not to obama.
it is an open point if the great federal police forces, such as the f.b.i. and the i.r.s. and others will enforce tyranny, but, if i were a betting person, my guess is that they will willingly be the minions of tyranny. in my view, they have already taken on a thug like persona, and seem to have no inclination to follow the rule of law, or any restrictions on behavior such as imposed by honor and duty. they are political thugs, in the same sense as the s.e.i.u. and the other labor goons who will support the regime.
in the second instance, most insurrections start out small, often seemingly insignificant in their scope, and then gain traction if the citizens of a country or society believe in the propositions that are being advanced by the insurrection.
the key issue here, is whether an american insurrection to retain gun ownership, possession and the right to bear arms gains intellectual and emotional traction with the american public. if it does not, the insurrection falls flat on its face, and the insurrection & we who witness it shall all learn the lessons of summary punishment and death at the gibbet.
if, on the other hand, the american public supports the aims, and this is key, the actions of those who advance the insurrection because they choose wisely and prudently who and what to attack, then i don't believe any force on earth can forestall the actions of the gun owning populace who take to arms to preserve the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
several issues are paramount.--
the insurrection must make it understood that the right to arms is ancient, as ancient as the right of self defense, and that it is part of our political heritage secured well before the creation of this nation. i was careful to say the right to arms is "constitutionally protected," and is not a "constitutional right" in the sense that the right was "created" by the second amendment, or its origins are in the second amendment. the origins of the right to arms is not in the second amendment, it did not create them, and they preceded the document: congress is prescribed from interfering with something that pre-existed congress. the right to arms precedes the second amendment, and goes back to the magna carta, and arises out of historical abuses in english history, when english catholics tried to disarm english protestants, and the protestants likewise tried to disarm the catholics some time later. (forgive me if i have that backwards, or muddled, ... , but, you get the point.)
you can bet your bottom bippy that the framers were very well aware of this history, and the lessons it taught them about firearms.
secondly, the insurrection must make the case clearly that the second amendment guarantees the expression and exercise of the other great rights protected by the bill of rights, and those to include free speech, assembly, and right to trial by due process. in societies without gun ownership, these rights are observed more in the breach than the observance.
finally, i reiterate a previous point.
we must wage our insurrection wisely. it is not the occasion for rampant and uncontrolled riot, or theft, or destruction of property. it is in affirmation of our constitution, and our rights and liberties under it, and any insurrection must make sure we do not trample on the property rights of our fellow citizens, or their rights and liberties.
when the insurrection attacks property, it must be the property of the government trying to oppress the citizenry, or the property of those who openly, vocally and notoriously favor the abridgment of our right. it would seem to me that open and notorious proponents of "gun control" would be fair game to the insurrection. and, if and when the insurrection attacks persons, they must deserve it, because they are either part of obama's incipient tyranny, or tyrants themselves such as barbara diane feinstein, or nancy pelosie or harry reid, and that they seek as well to abridge and infringe our right and liberty. of this ilk i would think the insurrection would include any politician or member of congress who votes or encourages gun control, either on the floor of congress or in passing the legislation to the floor in committee.
anyone running the insurrection would most assuredly find that such persons as al gore, or george soros would be included in the analysis defining who were to be the fair targets of an insurrection, should it mount. i don't think the press would enjoy any special dispensation from the wrath of an incited public, or the members of the same carrying on an insurrection in its name.
i don't think the insurrection fails to gain traction because there are not deserving antagonists, who can easily be identified as usurpers of our right and heritage.
but, the point of the critiques to a modest start of insurrection is to the effect, that starting small it cannot gain adherents because it will be denied any sort of identifiable successes, either in its operations or in the dissemination of propaganda.
i don't think that recent history in the middle east, or history in general in the last century or so, supports this contention. not logically, nor by observation of action fact and events.
i would simply point to the jihadi terror, as mounted by islam and by the european and american left. it has had to fight asymmetrical war against the united states military, and has more than made up for its inability to confront the american military on the conventional battlefield by acts inspired to attract attention and spread its propaganda view of the world.
it has done so against the finest military ever fielded in the history of man.
i reiterate, i don't think the insurrection will be in battle with the u.s. military. i think the insurrection will do battle against federal agents and bureaucracy, and their armed agents, and they in no wise are as formidable in any respect to the u.s. military. i should think that well planned acts of insurrection, pointed toward limited aims and executed against federal personnel in highly vulnerable situations, will be quite successful.
and, i think that such operations carried out over time will simply wear the federal government out.
now, in conclusion, these remarks.
this post has dealt with why i believe an insurrection will not be easily stamped out by a federal response, or even by state and municipal police forces, and why it will not die aborning. in the next installment, i shall treat with whether or not insurrection will take on a wider scope, to include paramilitary operations and the like, as the insurrection matures.
and, we will talk about such matters as growing the force of those who carry on insurrection, if that is to be possible.
and/or, whether that is really necessary. there is a real potential that the cowardice and the venal nature of those the insurrection attacks, may obviate the need for wide scale combat, over and above the actions taken by the various groups carrying out the insurrection.
keep several "somethings" in mind. i doubt whether al queda and the combined forces of the jihad have ever amounted to very large numbers. by contrast, there are millions of americans who hunt and fish, and who use, carry and own firearms. and, there are millions of americans who will not stand for their seizure, or their confiscation, or prohibitions on their devise or alienation.
as remington has noted in its advertisements, it has sold 5 million model 700 rifles over its production. winchester could likely say something similar about its model 70. i don't know how many million gun owners there are in the united states, nor how many million guns there are in lawful possession by gun owners.
i know this for a fact.
we gun owners far outnumber the federal agents and state police the obama administration might put in the streets to try and enforce a gun ban. and, we out gun them in small arms.
and, from what i have seen of police officers shooting in the range, and from what i have seen of police swat teams, we who own guns can also outshoot them.
personally, i think anyone who would incite america to insurrection is an absolute fool. and, yes, joe biden, that would include you, on any number of counts.
john jay @ 01.08.2012
p.s. the only hope that obama and minions have is that by carrying out violent and deadly raids on a number of "examples," that the gun owning public will be intimidated and unnerved, and will not act as it has announced.
that it can convert people who are enraged at its actions into a compliant, passive and non-resisting force.
all i have to say, is good luck with that, obama. you've overplayed your hand, and stepped on your dick. wanna bet?