Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Arming the Left: Is the time now?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 09:40 PM
Original message
Arming the Left: Is the time now?
Arming the Left: Is the time now? --by Charles Southwell "As long as we pose no REAL threat to the powers-that-be, to what is shaping up into a dictatorship, we will continue to be ignored. Right now, we are ignored because we present no organized power to fight this onslaught of anti-democratic, totalitarian government that we are up against... We should remain committed to the absolute condemnation of individual acts of violence or terrorism."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ablbodyed Donating Member (610 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. YES YES YES....
If you think that the right isn't already organized to intimidate and,if necessary, to kill those that oppose them, then you haven't been paying attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SWPAdem Donating Member (951 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Having just spent a day
of having my address, as well my 86 year old father's address, posted on his old military units message boards because I dared to disagree with the resident loons, I say YES, YES, YES.

Then again, we already are. Anyone know where we can get some claymores for the perimeter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. I believe in the left being armed to the teeth...
in both firepower and information wise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Why should only the Reichwing be equipped to engage in warfare?
Just remember the Miami Dade riot to stop the counting of the votes. My only regret: I was not there... I am SURE Karl Rove laughed at how quickly the Democrats 'graciously accepted' the less-than-Supreme Court's biased verdict in Bush v. Gore.

Simply put, another coup d'etat in November is not acceptable to me.

:)-Lori Price
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Actually, only soldiers are equpped for warfare,
and whoever controls the army would handidly win any armed conflict in this country. Sorry folks, this isnt the 1700's, lets get a grip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Hate to tell you
Edited on Sun Feb-22-04 10:07 PM by lcordero
The only humans on this planet not equiped for warfare are newborns and quadriplegics.

A thinking person, even somewhat disabled, is the person best equipped for warfare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. The us army
is spread out in over 100 countries. You're right, this isn't the 1700's. Civilians, even with all of the current federal gun laws, are far more heavily armed than they were in the 18th century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salinen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
3. We need to view this GE
as a war. Yes, they will kill if they sense they are losing. This is the most important election in the history of the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hekate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
4. So tell me how this would be different ...
... from the Montana Militia, survivalists, and other groups I've always thought of as --um-- how to put this -- somewhat unstable?

Though I have to say that every time Bill Moyers does another special analysis of the wingnuts flying in formation to run our country, I end up having rather apocalyptic visions of my own.

Still, I think my question is a reasonable one, all things considered.

Hekate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
5. Hi Lori
It's nice to see you posting again. I love CLG. You guys are right on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Thanks, Rainy!!
:)-Lori
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gildor Inglorion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:03 PM
Response to Original message
9. Oh, yes
But we of the left aren't nearly angry enough yet to be effective. Arm the left, but hide the arms against the day of need. "Hope for the best, but expect the worst," is my current motto. }(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moonbeam_Starlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
10. What about those of us on the left who are already armed? (m)
And I agree, this GE is going to be war. Maybe not in the LITERAL sense, but pretty damn close.

I read somewhere (WHERE???) that if people get a whiff of something afoul in this election, there will be riots. Especially if that foul stuff happens in Florida.

Dunno if that's true or not. But some of us on the left have been armed for years. Literally and information-wise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Ditto...and looking for more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. Yes, spread the word, even if you *didn't* read it!
Yes, spread the word, even if you *didn't* read it, that there *will* be riots! Yes! Riots, and a whole lot more!

Let the Bush terror team KNOW that there will be *repercussions* if/when they steal it again. We are not accepting the vote-fraud again in Florida, or ANYWHERE.

We KNOW Max Cleland WON Georgia in 2002 and that Carnahan and Wellstone were assassinated by the Bush terror team. And, whether you supported Dr. Dean or not, you must be compelled to agree that the Rove assassination squad made 'quick work' of him via the Reichwing media.

-Lori Price
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnOneillsMemory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. "a real threat to the powers that be"-HA! They've got the firepower. No...
Edited on Sun Feb-22-04 10:10 PM by JohnOneillsMemory
I sure understand what you're saying.
What if the Jews had been armed like Texans when the Nazis came?

The Black Panthers decided to halt police brutality with an armed vigilence. Of course, the cops just murdered some of them in their beds, like Fred Hampton in Chicago.


Once upon a time, the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights allowing the right to bear arms COULD balance against a tyrannical government. A bunch of Minutemen with muskets could take on the King's troops with muskets.

Now the government has far far far superior firepower.
Nuclear bombs, missiles, helicopters, Stinger missiles, you name it.

You can get some parity in firepower against your fellow citizens.
But not the government.

Winning the hearts and minds of the American people so they don't do the bidding of the tyrant is the key to long term democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. Federalist 46
http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_46.html

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.

This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
20. Yes.
Because the government is going to carpet bomb LA and nuke NYC if a few revolutionaries happen to be hiding in either of them. :eyes:

People who bring up tanks and nukes and helicopters when talking about civilian versus government firepower need to use their imaginations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #20
28. Lightly armed civilians?
This assumes the US military would turn on its own people if ordered to and I'm not sure that would happen at the individual soldier level. But for the sake of argument let's say some did.

It seems to me that there have been more than a few cases where a lightly armed civilian population dealt int heir own way with a formal military roganization.

The Warsaw Ghetto, with home made pistols and Sten guns made from pipe and bedsprings and captured German weapons stood off the Nazis long enough for some to escape.

The French Maquis (sp?) diverted a full division of German Armor and infantry to deal with behind the lines attacks.

The Philippine guerillas against the Japanese in WW II.

The North Vietnames and Viet Cong seemed to do pretty well for themselves against our own military.

The Mujahadeen against the Soviets.

Present day Iraq

I'm sure there are a lot I'm missing but even a lightly armed population, committed to their cause and willing to die for it sometimes, does stand a chance against a larger force. It calls for a very different set of tactics though.

The only truly helpless situation is not having the means or the will to resist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. Great points, especially this one:
"The only truly helpless situation is not having the means or the will to resist."

:)-Lori
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madrone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
14. I already am, and yes, I think more liberals should be.
Not in a crazy, gun-nut, penis extension kinda way - of course.

I don't have guns for protection (good thing, as I'd never be able to get to them in time if I needed to -theyre buried in an overstuffed closet), nor do I carry.

I'm just a liberal chick that grew up with a dad that owned a gun shop and taught me how to shoot at a young age.

I have a handgun, and a rifle. I take them out plinking when I can find the time - it's fun!

I always tell neocon jagoffs that I am their WORST nightmare, a liberal chick with a gun! :)

Anyway, if we ever have some sort of government uprising I CAN defend myself if I have to (once I dig out the closet) - although I would hate to be in that position. I certainly wouldn't ever want to hurt anyone. I'm a pacifist vegetarian, for pete's sake.

If the gov ever comes around rounding up liberal's guns, well, my handgun is unregistered and there is nothing anywhere (except for this message on DU) that says I have it in my possession. Imagine my suprise when I discovered in WA thats a-ok, completely unlike what I am used to in MI. I didn't think too much about it until after the gestapo took over our government - now I'm kinda happy it's off the radar. My rifle was purchased at a store, and they had to run an FBI check on me before completing the purchase. I imagine there's a record somewhere that says I own a Ruger 10/22 after that check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moonbeam_Starlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Proud Democrat you reminded me of something (m)
In late September, when I went with about 500 other Texans to canvass door to door for Dean in Iowa, we were walking along one street in Cedar Rapids, and we were with a couple of guys. They weren't gay, just roommates and friends who came together.

Anyway, we are trying to look for the next house number in the rain and this truck rolls by and sees our Dean shirts and yells to the two guys we are with, "HEY! Dean people are FAGGOTS!"

They kinda slow down, then go around the block, come back and start to yell it again, but one of the guys cuts them off with:

"Hey we're from Texas!"

The guy driving yells "SO?"

And the guy with us yells, "So even the FAGGOTS have guns in Texas, ASSHOLE!"

To which the driver gave him a blank look and drove off.

I nearly wet my pants laughing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcordero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. lmao
Edited on Sun Feb-22-04 10:55 PM by lcordero
I wonder if the "steers and queers" jokes are going to be directed at Perry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Madrone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. lol

The Iowa boys had no response, eh?

Funny.

I honestly forget I have guns until the subject comes up - I need to dig those puppies out of the closet and give them a good cleaning, as this thread has reminded me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-22-04 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
23. I read the article and I'm just wondering....
why was it dumped in J/PS? Obviously it was moved from another board. Just because the "G" word or "2nd amendment" issues are discussed it automatically belongs here? There are broader issues here than the right to keep and bear arms. The sentiments expressed could be applied to both extreme left wing and right wing activists (same clowns... different circus). I think the article should be discussed in a broader sense for a solution to the present government. Firearms are not the only solution... they are the last solution. I just think it's prejudicial to assume that this is something right up the "gun nuts" ally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. Same reason why the 9/11 conspiracies are filed away...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Yeah, really. Why was it dumped here?
"why was it dumped in J/PS? Obviously it was moved from another board. Just because the "G" word or "2nd amendment" issues are discussed it automatically belongs here?"

-Lori
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alwynsw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. If a thread has anything to do with firearms ownership
it usually gets bumped to J/PS, aka "The Gungeon".

That being said: the 2nd Amendment applies to all of us, progressives and freepers alike. I choose to own just as many as I can afford. Several are completely clear of any sales records, some have the little yellow form record (I forget the number). Yup. They're stored separately. I could ramble on about the joys of firearms ownership and use, but I think I'll stop for now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. LOLOL: 'The Gungeon.'
That is a riot!!!

The 2nd Amendment is a NECESSITY if/when Bush steals the election again in November. We will need to defend ourselves when Patriot Acts II, III, and IV are passed under Bush Dictatorship II.

:)-Lori
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. alwynsw is correct
though it pains me to say so :P

Guns and 2nd amendment issues in general get turfed to the Gungeon. They move pretty fast up there in GD, so we move 'em down here so that you can discuss the issue at length. It'll stay on the front page much longer than upstairs due to our decreased traffic.

Plus, down in the Gun Dungeon you have the advantage of the collective wisdom of so many fellow RKBAers. You also have the counter view of equally well-versed activists who view the 2nd Amendment through a different lens. These pro gun control advocates and the RKBAers have a lot of great discussions. Stick around, its a fun place - despite rumor to the contrary. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Gun control advocates? Where?
Methinks they've laid down their arms and surrendered. :shrug:

That means... We win! :party:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Congrats
The two (or was it three?) people who could stomach the argument in the gungeon go on vacation and its victory!

Woo-hoo! break out the ammo, free guns for everyone!

The 2nd Amendment is safe for democracy - the anti-freedom forces on the DU gun board are silent!

/sarcasm
/obviously
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Columbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Yeehaw!
However, I must say that even an archetypal hero needs a foil to truly bring out the best logical discourse possible.

"The 2nd Amendment is safe for democracy"

If only twere true...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jhfenton Donating Member (567 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. Where!?
Woo-hoo! break out the ammo, free guns for everyone!
Woo-hoo! Free guns! Sign me up!

I'll bring the ammo!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FeebMaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. Lies!
It's a trick! Run while you still have a chance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Shhhh
quiet! I'm trying to recruit new sig lines!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
37. Organize First, arm later
When Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, he made the First Amendment first and the Second Amendment second for very good reasons. You need both, but without the First, the Second is useless, and without the Second the First is easy to surpress. Madison (and the rest of the Country) were worried about what will happen if tyrants would gain control of the Government (Tyrant is not the exact word needed to describe who was feared but I will use the word Tyrant for I can not come up with a better word for a person or group of persons who the people want to overthrow).

History has shown it is ORGANIZATIONS and people who are ORGANIZED that win fights against tyrants. Thus the First Amendment addressed the issue of HOW people can organize, how who to organize people.

During the Revolution and before the Revolution much of the support for the Revolution came from the Churches. The Churches are where people came to meet and assemble peacefully to state their rights. During and before the Revolution people wrote pamphlets, letters, newspapers etc to support the Revolution (and also to oppose the Revolution). Without these attempts to mobilize the population the Revolution would have FAILED. Thus the First Amendment has all of the rights needed to organize any group of people, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to Assembly, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press (all are inter-related and where one ends and another begins is hard to determined thus why ALL of them are mentioned in the First Admendment). Without the rights sets forth in the First Admenment you can NOT MOBILIZE any sizable group of people.

With the rights set forth in the First Amendment you can mobilize people and once you have moblized the majority of the people than the ruling tyrants must address this mobilized group of people. The problem is what happens when the tyrants refuses to address what the people want? What if (unlike the British in India and the Federal Government regarding the Civil Rights Movement in the South) the powers that control the Government are willing to use violence to suppress opposition?

In Vietnam you had two periods of LOW LEVEL Guerilla Activities, right after WWII as the French re-occupied the Country from the Japanese (and actually took the country back from the View Minh who had driven the Japanese back to just the ports at the end of WWII) and again from 1955 to 1964 as the North Vietnam switched from fighting the French (which ended in 1954 by Peace treaty giving Ho Chi Minh control of North Vietnam, and Diem control of South Vietnam) to overthrowing the Government of South Vietnam.

Now the high level Guerilla Activities in Vietnam were from 1946 till 1954 and from 1964 till 1975 (Only in South Vietnam during the period 1964-1975). By 1954 most of what would become North Vietnam was under the Control of the Viet Minh (With the Exception of Hanoi, Haiphong, and most of South Vietnam with the exception of the Mekong Delta which was pro-Communist). Thus the split of Vietnam in 1954 was along the lines both sides controlled (With the Viet Minh giving up the Mekong Delta and getting Hanoi and Haiphong in return). At that time period, if the majority of people in South Vietnam had been permitted to vote, they would have voted to join North Vietnam. The ruling classes of South Vietnam opposed that idea so no such election occurred. In response to this lack of an election the Communists started a slow growth of Guerilla activities in South Vietnam. To support these activities and to support increase activities in the future, North Vietnam started to build up its forces in the South. These forces became known as the Viet Cong.

The Viet Cong did not form a Battalion size units till about 1964. Thus between 1954 and 1964 all activities were Company (i.e. less than 100 men) or smaller attacks. These also tended not to be integrated (i.e. individual attacks to show to the people the opposition to the Government of South Vietnam existed, very similar to what is happening in Iraq today). By 1964 this guerilla activity was on the verge of taking over the Country. The Viet Cong knew they needed larger formations than Companies to take over the country, so they started to integrate the previously independent Companies into Battalions and Regiments. At that point the US intervened and delayed the wishes of the South Vietnamese people till 1975 when in what most people consider a fair vote the South Agreed to merge with the North (this was after the fall of South Vietnam to the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops).

In Afghanistan a similar scenario played out, you had opposition to the Government of Afghanistan, which was in danger of falling when the former Soviet Union Intervened in 1979. Ten years later the former Soviet Union left and finally the Government of Afghanistan fell to the Islamic opposition (Which a few years later after tearing the country apart fell to the Taliban, but that is another story).

In all three of these situation the opposition to the Tyrannical Government first organized themselves at the village level, than into Companies, than into Battalions and Regiments. In Vietnam this was between 1954 and 1964, in Afghanistan between 1975 (and the fall of the King of Afghanistan) and 1979, in the case of the Taliban between 1995 and 1997 as they slowly took over the country, more by political maneuvering than military might. In fact the Taliban takeover was the most peaceful of the three but also the one not OPPOSED by foreign countries (Till it came to the Northern Provinces when Russia opposed the expansion of the Taliban let their brand of Islam be carried into the Islamic Republics of the former Soviet Union).

If you want an example closer to home, look at Castros Cuban Revolution of the late 1960s, again he first organized, made political opposition and when that was repressed went into Guerilla warfare to overthrow a tyrant. The FARC in Columbia is following a similar policy.

The first lesson of these campaigns is first guns, by themselves are useless. You must first organize the majority of people to support the guerilla activities and maintain a message to those same majority of people of the need to maintain the opposition to the tyranny.

Only once you have the majority of the people on your side you can do a successful guerilla war. If the people support the Tyrant you can NOT win. Opposition is NOT enough, the people must want to support you. Support means providing their sons to fight for you AND supplying you with the food and money to keep on fighting. This has to be Voluntary, I use Voluntary in quotes for it is the same type of voluntary commitment people do when they pay taxes. People do not like paying taxes, but will do so for a Government (or Guerilla resistence Group) that offers to give them what the people want.

I go into the above to show you HOW the Second works in conjunction with the First. The First gives you the ability to form into groups that opposes an enemy, once you are formed up, like Castros Guerillas, The Viet Cong, The Afghan Guerillas, The FARC in Columbia, than and only than can you make your military move IF YOU HAVE THE WEAPONS TO DO SO.

Eastern Europe was occupied from 1945 till 1990 when the Soviet Union pulled out. The people of Eastern Europe opposed rule by the former USSR, but lacked the means to drive out the Red Army. Given the Military/ Political situation in Eastern Europe the people did not want another war and the USSR made efforts to make sure any opposition was muted. For example the removal of the Germans from Silesia and the Sudenland. These had been hot points prior to WWII, so the Soviet Union removed the German population and gave their homes to Poles (in Silesia) and Czechs (In Sudenland). These new Settlers had to support the Government for if they did not all the Government had to do is threaten to fall and the title to they new homes disappeared with the Government. Furthermore the Armies of Eastern Europe were kept under constant watch and had inferior equipment to the Red Army itself. Finally, the Soviet Unions hand was light on matters NOT involved with ruling. Finally, the actually ruler where locals, who had some popularity with the people, and these politicians AND the people knew that to much opposition would lead to total war with the Red Army something, the people, their Armies and their Politicians all opposed.

Please note once the threat of Red Army intervention was removed by Gorbachev, all of these countries overthrew their Communist leadership and installed governments more in line with Western Style Democracy (and the only Eastern European Country that had any violence was Romania, where the Army backed the People against the Rulers and their Police followers). The chief reason for the relatively peaceful transition is that Eastern Europe had Universal Military Service, thus the Army consisted of the people (more like a militia than a regular army). Thus the Army of these countries could not be used against the people (unless the people supported such use. This is a major difference between Eastern European Countries and the Countries mentioned earlier (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba and Columbia) these countriess Armies are all Voluntary i.e. hired mercenaries with some draftees to fill in the lower ranks. The people of these countries and these countriess armies are NOT the same (And very similar to the present US Volunteer Army).

Thus to have a successful revolution you need organization first. That is sufficient unless the Tyrants decide to use force. A Eastern European style army can not be used for that activity and as such if a country has such an army the revolution will tend to be peaceful. The problem is most of the world who are ruled by Tyrants who have mercenary armies. Such mercenary armies will do anything to keep their paymaster in power (and themselves paid).

To destroy such an army requires a slow destruction of its ability to supply itself and to pay itself. Thus any successful Guerilla war has first to separate the Mercenary army from its ability to be paid and feed. Protecting the Peasants (or other poor people) when possible but mostly tying the mercenary army in futile efforts to get supplies (i.e. food to eat and money to buy weapons with and to pay themselves). The Army of South Vietnam was noted for this and once the US left, where unable to stop the onslaught of both Guerilla and Regular forces of North Vietnam that lead to the fall in South Vietnam in 1975. The Army of South Vietnam needed to disburse to collect the taxes (including food) and thus were targets for the Guerillas, at the same time it needed to stay together to fight off any attack by the regular forces allied with the Guerillas.

This same tactics where used by Washington to destroyed the British Army during the American Revolution. Washington by keeping his regular forces together, forced the British to keep their forces in New York and their other bases, for fear that Washingtons Continentals might launch an attack against them. The problem for the British was that by staying together they could not gather food and fodder for their horses. Thus the British Army in North America slowly died Now, Yorktown was a great Victory over the British, but the British was still in a very strong position after Yorktown but still had the strain of maintaining an army AND fighting Guerillas. This was to much and the British decided to cut their losses and used Yorktown as an excuse to go back home to England. The same thing was happening to our army in Vietnam from 1964-1970 and later what destroyed the South Vietnamese Army.

Castro used the same tactics, maintaining a strong central force while maintaining a widespread Guerilla Army against Batista. The FARC is doing the same, it has a large centralized Army, but also a huge number of Guerillas fighting the Government of Columbia thoughout the area FARC controls. Washingont tactics where copied by the North Vietnamese when it kept a armored division just north of the DMZ during the whole Vietnam war waiting to pounce when it was the right time to attack (The Armored Division stayed north of the DMZ during the Tet Offensive of 1968, but did strike in 1975). The Taliban did the same tactics on its march to power, maintained a strong Army that would fight, but preferred to deal and set up Guerillas and than take over another section of Afghanistan. The Taliban used these tactics to take over most of Afghanistan. These tactics only failed the Taliban when they moved out of areas dominated by Pathans and into areas of other ethics groups in Afghanistan (And the Taliban had limited ability to use Guerilla tactics in these areas) . During the Afghan War, the fact that the Guerillas could maintain a fairly large force in both Iran and Pakistan contained Soviet attacks.

Now, you may say Hay, you are talking about Islamic and/or Communists groups not Western Liberal resistence groups. And you would be correct. As I said in the beginning the first step in a guerilla war against a tyrant is to first organize. The Islamic and Communists Groups were the best at organizing people. Western Liberal Resistence Groups were less effective in organizing resistence groups (And less liked by the CIA and KGB who tended to fund these groups, remember any war is expensive, money talks).

Furthermore since most Islamic and Communist groups tend to be the first groups outlawed they tend to go underground first. Once underground they start to organize and as other groups are outlawed those groups tend to join the opposition which tends to be either Islamic or Communistic. Once outlawed these groups also tend to be controlled by the most fanatic opponents of the Tyrants and these tend to be either Islamic or Communistic. Thus to oppose the Tyrants you have to support a side with enough discipline to get the job done and that tend to be Communist or Islamic.

And do not think these can NOT be democratic, Iran while not a Western Style Liberal Democracy, has more freedom than any other country in the Mid-East including Iraq and excepting Israel. The Islamic leadership has problems but they are not the tyrants the Shah had been. Castro has jailed opponents, but he is NOT the Tyrant Batista had been. While the Overthrow of the Communist Government of Afghanistan was a disaster in Civil Rights (Especially for Women), under the Taliban you finally had peace that most of the people of Afghanistan accepted.

My point is ORGANIZATION is important, but without weapons such organization is worthless. The Chinese used Guerilla tactics against the Japanese and the better equipped the Guerillas became the more effective they became. Finally as WWII ended they became strong enough to drive out the Japanese (as the Japanese tried to hold onto anything it could as the US prepared to Invade and as the Soviet Union Took Manchuria from Japan). The better equipped the Guerilla is the better job he will do, and if equipped and organized good enough (i.e. the Universal Service Armies of Eastern Europe) the people being opposed by them will not even try to suppress the revolt (i.e. Eastern Europe in the late 1980s) or if suppression in tried quickly defeated (Romania).

It is when organization and/or weapons are missing that Tyrants last for any length of time. For example Castro has ruled as a Tyrant, but he is popular and therefore the opposition has been unable to formed a popular uprising against him (Castros opponents has the weapons but no popular support). Eastern Europe had the weapons but also no will when under Soviet occupation (but as soon as the Red Army withdrew they did overthrow their dictators).

Thus the point of this paper, it takes three things to overthrow a tyrant,

1. Popular support, you must have the majority of the people on your side (i.e. Democracy, even the Communists and Islamics both try to show they have the Support of the Majority of the People),
2. Organization to perform the overthrow (This is why Madison wrote the First like he did, these are HOW you organize an opposition. Without the First it is hard to organize an opposition and any resistence organized in absence of the rights stated in the First tend to be as tyrannical as what you are opposing)
3. Weapons to push the issue if the leadership that is being overthrown tries to use force to stay in power. You have to be willing to answer force with force. Weapons do not overthrow a tyrant, weapons just protect the people who are overthrowing a tyrant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-24-04 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. The three points in 'overthrowing a tyrant' are good!
Bush was able to overthrow Democracy w. five inJustices on the take, three of which should have recused themselves due to conflict of interest.

-Lori
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-26-04 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. That is why the first is more important than the second
The Court should NOT have intervened in Gore vs Bush. Florida's Courts were in the process to have a recount (and re-count that would have made Gore President). Given that counting votes is a state duty the US Supreme Court should have stayed out of it completely.

I do want to re-emphasis one thing, we have to have majority support for any act to remove Bush. We do NOT have that at the present time. While the Majority of Americans do not like how he is doing as President, the Majority of Americans accept him as President.

This fall's election will be crucial. If Kerry wins and Bush does illegal acts to stay in power than revolt will be called for and I believe the majority of Americans will support such a revolt. On the other hand if Bush wins the election our hands will be tied (no majority support to overthrow Bush) unless Bush only wins through clear evidence of Cheating and do to that evidence of Cheating the majority of American support a revolt.

Thus the Freedoms set forth in the First Amendment must be used to get Kerry elected AND to show any cheating by Bush. You only resort to arms if fair elections are denied (Excessive Cheating so Bush is re-elected) OR the results of the elections are denied (Bush stays in Power despite the Fact Kerry wins the elections).

As to weapons, Cameras are as important as guns. The first move must be peaceful unarmed demonstrations in support of fair elections and the results of a fair elections. Cameras can be used to take pictures of the efforts to suppress the peaceful demonstrations.

If force is decided to be needed (and hopefully it will not be) than cameras will have to show WHY the decision to use force was needed and that the use of force was limited to what was needed. We have to be able to show the American Public we are fighting for THEIR rights and you do that with pictures in today's society. We have to show we were FORCED to defend ourselves from the violence being imposed by Bush's supporters. Remember we must have majority support of the American People, without that support we will lose. To keep that support we must show we are NOT the person trying to overthrow the rightfully elected President. I emphasis this let anyone get the impression we should revolt without a plan. The Plan MUST be to use peaceful means FIRST. Only when that fails and Bush's supporters turn to violence should we turn to violence. We have to try Dr Martin Luther King's methods FIRST before we do armed revolt. The attempt at Peaceful enforcement of our rights must be tried even if it means some people die from the violent repression. Thus point one in my three points MUST be attempted and re-attempted and only when repression come to much (and we can show it on film) should be resort to Violence.

The last (and in many ways least important point) are the actual weapons to be used. Any weapons we resort to must be "real" weapons not pistols. i.e. Rifles and shotguns. Do to concerns of re-supply (you have to plan for a long battle) such weapons should be limited to very small number of different rounds. Generally restrict yourself to the following rounds:

5.56x 45 (.223 Remington)
7.62x 63 (30-06)
7.62x 51 (.308 Winchester or 7.62 NATO)
7.62 x 39 (7.62mm Russian 7.62 AK Round)
12 Gauge Shotgun.
30-30 Winchester.

You have more weapons in the above calibers than any other calibers thus should be your first choice in weapons. Saying this I must point out I like the 7x57 and 7.92x57 Mauser rounds and the M1898 Mauser Bolt action Rifle, but the 7.92 (sometime called 8mm Mauser) but these rounds are less common than the above and thus harder to obtain when re-supply is needed (and re-supply will be needed if the struggle lasts for any length of time).

Re-supply of Ammunition has always been the bane of any military operations. Without ammunition you can not fight. To get you ammunition, it is easier if we can keep the number of different rounds to a minimum (i.e. 5.56x45 and 7.62x51). I list the 30-06 and 30-30 winchester rounds for these are two VERY popular rounds and ammunition for both are easy to obtain (the same with the 12 Gauge shotgun). I list the 7.62 AK round do to the huge number of SKSs and AKs imported since the fall of the Soviet Union. I list it for while there are probably more 30-30s and 30-06 rifles out they than 7.62 Aks and SKSs, the Aks and SKSs may very while outnumber the rifles in 5.56x45 and 7.62 NATO.

Also, if it is decided to fight, be prepared to fight, bring a backpack, entrenching tool, tent, and other equipment of an Infantrymen. You will need it for Bush and his supporters decides it is better to fight than to accept the will of the people, the fight to overthrow them will be a long fight.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-28-04 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. Roger Stone's 'Miami-Recount Riot' crew didn't care about MLK tactics...
When the Republican Fascists were pounding on the doors and windows to stop the counting of the votes in Miami-Dade County, MLK tactics were no where to be found. Of course, the Democrats should NOT have acquiesced, but that is another sad and sorry story.

Numerous smaller coups have taken place since 2000, starting with the assassination of Paul Wellstone.

My point: it will not take much to get me to completely resist the second coup d'etat of George W. Bush.

Sincerely,
-Lori Price
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-06-04 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. MLK's methods would have worked.
Like Gundi, MLK was willing to meet force with force but only in reaction to force not as a provocation.

For example doing the re-count the Democrats should have called out their supporters to protect the poll workers. If the Police were not willing to remove the GOP protesters the called up Democrats would have forced the Police to do it(i.e. the Police would have had to separate the Democratic Protesters from the GOP protesters producing the protection to the poll workers that was needed).

My point is the Democrats have to be willing to meet force with force but at first only in a defensive posture. No provocations, but if push comes to shove, to push back. As I told my sister when she had a problem with a bully, do NOT hit first, but if hit, hit back.

Now, if the radical GOP decides to use the force of the STATE (The Police and Army) to prevent such popular protection of poll workers/politicians than an uprising is called for (including offensive Military operations). As long as the Police and Army are "Neutral" and the only force being used are political hacks (like in the "Riot" in the re-count) than we MUST only use force to protect ourselves and our supporters and leave any "offensive" use of force to the Neutral Police and Army.

Thus MLK's tactics are the best tactic we can use TODAY. If we would have made a more serious effort to protect those poll workers (and NOT rely on the Police to protect them) the problem of the election may even have been solved (The re-count done BEFORE the Supreme Court would have made its ruling). MLK's methods would have sufficed in that fight (We may have been bloodied but the "rioters" would have left the area, highly paid GOP staffers do not want to get into any real fight, like most bullys, they are cowards at heart and would have run once Democrats would have appeared).

Remember Bush and most of his cabinets are Chicken hawks, they talk the tough talk but will NOT risk their lives. If they can NOT use the police and the Army the GOP will fold every time in any street fight. That is why there was NO police at the polling place. The police would have told the rioters to disbursed and once the rioters refused, the police would have arrested them. The GOP rioters would gladly threaten senior citizen poll takers, but fight police officers? NO, the Police might fight back and bullys do NOT fight people who might fight back
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solinvictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-29-04 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. 7.62x54 & 7.92 Mauser
Both of these rounds are extremely cheap and plentiful, along with the rifles that shoot them. The Mosin Nagant in 7.62x54 can be had for about $100 in great shape. It's an old bolt action rifle that's very accurate, more so with optics. The ammunition can be had as cheap as $30/ 440 round sealed tin. Steel core Czech ammunition is nearly as cheap at $70/ 800 rounds. Yugoslav, Romanian, Czech, and German Mauser 98 variants can be had for $100-$200 or so. The ammunition is just as cheap, or cheaper, than the 7.62x54. Conceivably, you could purchase a Mosin Nagant carbine with sling, ammo pouches, cleaning kit, and 800 rounds of ammunition for less than $200. That's a lot of security.

Don't forget canned goods as well. If something were to break out, the groceries would be picked clean or limited by a government mandated movement restriction and/or registration. Some canned staples, especially pinto and other beans, are going for 3 cans for a buck. Store canned food, vitamins, a good first aid kit, flashlights, a battery powered radio, batteries, and plenty of water for drinking and hygiene. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. Good Weapons, so are the .303 British and 7mm Mauser.
Edited on Tue Mar-02-04 01:54 PM by happyslug
But my point was the issue of RE-SUPPLY i.e. once you shoot all of your ammunition where are you going to get new ammunition????

Supply is one of the hardest parts of forming up any army (and that what we are talking about). The easier you make the supply chain the more NEEDED supply you will get to the troops needing the supply. One way to do ease the supply chain is to keep the number of different calibers of weapons in use to a lowest number you can. Thus the reason I picked the five weapons I did. All are popular, all can be purchased in most gun shops and most Stores that sell Ammunition. Furthermore you can buy large quantities of those rounds over seas (With the exception of the 30-30) to be shipped back to the US if needed.

Supply is the reason the US Army uses just the 5.56mm and 7.62 rounds. In some circumstance other rounds would be better, but the need to keep the supply chain as simple as possible is the reason the US Army only uses these two rounds (and the Russian Army uses only the 5.45x39 round the 7.62x39 round and the 7.62x54R Round).

As to your comment on cans goods, I agree but you must make sure you have enough for yourself and your family (You will not be a good soldier if you believe your spouse and children are starving to death, thus you must make sure your spouse and children are feed). Always plan for an extended time period without access to food, it is generally recommended at least three months and preferably a year supply of food and other items (i.e. clothes, razors, soap, shampoo, needle and thread etc). Please also note any supply has to be items you use today. Do not think you will quickly convert from hamburger to pasta because pasta keeps better than meat. You need to start eating food that does not need electricity to store TODAY. Cut back and use the proceeds to buy what you think you will need. Keep refreshing the items i.e. buy pasta today, but use the pasta you purchased three months ago (To keep fresh your stock pile).

You also need to secure a means of transport for gasoline will be kept in short supply (For this purpose I recommend people to buy themselves a good Bicycle and a trailer for that Bike. Just to haul extra Ammunition and food around). Now do not plan to move all of your food at once, remember you can make trips to haul the items from one location to another if needed (A bike trailer makes this much easier to do than by back back).

Remember the tools of repression are Propaganda, Terror and Starvation. If the oppressors can not convince you to support them, they will try to scare you NOT to oppose them. If they can not scare you than they will starve you into submission. Study Maslov's Hierarchy of needs. Maslov devised it to show what people can do once certain needs are meet (and what people can NOT do if those needs are NOT meet).

For a dicussion of Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs:
http://www.wynja.com/personality/needs.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-02-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs
1 - P = Physiological
2 - S = Safety
3 - L = Belongingness and Love
4 - E = Esteem
5 - SA = Self-Actualization

Any repression acts on Maslov's Hierarchy. Esteem and Self-actualization is what we are doing here in DU, but you can NOT do Esteem and Self-Actualization if the lower needs are not being meet (or have been destroyed) Thus any Repression first attacks people's need to belong and love through Propangda. If that does not work terror is used to attack their need for safety. If that does not work than the need to eat (i.e. Stravation) is used.

This system of attack is effective and we MUST be prepared to address all three. First by orgainizating we can get our mesage out. I.e. get our message out what we are for (My comment on Cameras and the need to show we are fighting for the rights of the majority of people).

Second, we must be able to defend outselves from terror (This is why we must arm, NOT to overthrow the Government, but to protect oursleves from the Government while the Government falls do to the opposition to its policies).

Third, and last we must have a secure source of food, water, shelter and transport to make sure stravation does not destroy our orgaination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
solinvictus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. Resupply
Well, my theory is, that with the milsurp bolt action used effectively, you can forage off of the enemy. The VC and others have done it in guerilla war. In irregular warfare, your first weapon allows you to take another, thus allowing you to pass on the first to do likewise for another, like an armed Amway scheme.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-04 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. That why my first two types of Ammo were 5.56 and 7.62 NATO
You will be able to get them from the opposing forces, the rest of the list you will NOT be able to get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSandman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-23-04 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
38. Semper Paratus...
A well-armed population is the best defense against a tyrannical state. Well-armed in both weapons and knowledge.

Advocating the overthrow of civil authority by violence is a long ways off. That being said, we should all be ready for what may happen. It is more foreseeable, IMO, to anticipate the collapse of the dollar due to excessive government debt. What will ensue, I have no idea.

The threat to liberty by all politicians will be reduced by the widespread ownership of firearms and the organization of the owners. This is why the RKBA is not a partisan issue. We are at a moment when we must ponder whether the RKBA is worth the cost. Southwell grasps that the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

Before any armed resistance will be viable, the government will have to enrage a significant number of people in all the states. If that does happen, will the armed forces be effective against the people or will the members of the armed forces be AWOL protecting their own home fronts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
46. People on the left should be armed only if...
...they really want to be armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 09:08 AM
Response to Original message
47. Wow! What a terrible piece of tripe!
And the same sort of idiot rhetoric as these charmers....

"When he turned himself in in Las Vegas Wednesday, Furrow told authorities he wanted the shooting to be "a wake-up call to America to kill Jews." "

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/11/jcc_shooti... /

"On September 16, 1991, Organization units undertake acts of guerilla warfare and terrorism that set in motion the events that eventually lead to the overthrow of the System. Turner describes in lurid prose how, during ensuing weeks, he and his colleagues rob a liquor store for money (slitting the throat of the Jewish owner and knocking out his "fat, grotesque-looking" wife with a jar of kosher pickles), retrieve weapons stored in buried oil drums, plan assassinations and develop a scheme to bomb the F.B.I.'s headquarters. He goes into extensive detail about the merits of various explosives and his unit's laborious construction of a bomb. "

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Turner_Diaries.asp?xpic...

"They think we are a JOKE. Tens of millions of Americans protested the war, but because we posed no REAL THREAT to their power, we were UTTERLY IGNORED.
As long as we pose no REAL threat to the powers-that-be, to what is shaping up into a dictatorship, we will continue to be ignored. "

And there will be always be demented pieces of shit like this author, eager to find some rationale to justify his ugly fantasies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. ditto
An armed response to a government that has seized and is holding power by force is not unreasonable.

That is not the case in the US. To say otherwise is simply to mislead (for who knows what purpose?).

The government of the US is still selected by elections. The last election was not "stolen" by force, it was "won" according to the rules that govern the process, as applied by the people chosen and authorized to do that: the US Supreme Court.

Some of those people should undoubtedly never have been chosen for that purpose. The reason they were -- the reason those people were appointed to the US Supreme Court -- is that the USAmerican people elected the people who appointed them. Hard cheese. That's what happens when you elect the wrong people. Might be a lesson worth learning in there somewhere.

There are all sorts of reasons why those people occupy the seats of government, but seizing power by force is not one of them. And so far, they are not retaining power by force. Lies, fraud, manipulation, yes. Force, no. They have not, by force, acquired any power or resisted any legitimate transfer of power.

I hardly think that "armed resistance" to a government that has acquired power by election is going to be welcomed by many of the people who cast the votes to elect it, or even many of the people who voted against it. They really do not question the legitimacy of that government, and really with quite good reason.

I'm actually with slackmaster in the early stages of his analysis -- resistance to the illegitimate (in "our" opinion) acquisition of power, or use of power legitimately acquired, other than by force, can be mounted by means other than violence. Supreme Courts, for instance, will only go so far in collaborating in such illegitimate uses of power when they see a population massed against it. Hopefully, so will police and armed forces, in a country like the US where there is a strong public tradition and individual belief in the appropriate form and function of government as determined by things like a constitution, and not just allegiance to government of the day.

If the people again vote for the government you despise -- or if a majority votes against it and it still wins/takes/retains power -- and if that majority does not speak up, what likelihood do you suppose there is that it will support anyone rising up and using force? Get real, folks.

The reason the tens of millions who protested against the invasion of Iraq were ignored is because they were a pretty small minority -- the minority that both opposed the invasion and gave enough of a damn to say so. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that they represented some majority of USAmericans. In Canada, by contrast, while a lot of us did indeed get out on the streets (and proportionately more than in the US, actually, I'd say), the simple fact was that a majority of us opposed participating in the invasion, and our government knew it.

If you ain't got a majority, you may be right, but you simply do not have the "right" to use force against the government that the majority has elected. That rule might admit of exceptions, indeed, but I'm not seeing one just at the moment or on the horizon.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. What if
....those tens of millions who protested against the invasion of Iraq had, instead of protesting peacefully, started shooting at their fellow citizens and law enforcement? Would that have moved more citizens to join the cause?

I somehow doubt that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimsteuben Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Furrow
Furrow was released on May 21st of this year from a Seattle jail where was serving a sentence for felony assault with a deadly weapon. He served only five months for a felony conviction. Buford tried to commit himself at the Fairfax Psychiatric Hospital in Kirkland, a Seattle suburb, but got in trouble when he pulled a knife on staffers. "Sometimes I feel like I could just lose it and kill people," Furrow told Kings County Sheriff's Deputy, J.R. Hall, according to an arrest report. Furrow had apparently been drinking and drove himself to the hospital that day because he was thinking about suicide and about shooting people at a local mall. As was to be expected, this failure of both gun control and the mental health system -- which in this case had little resources or interest to take on an "unmanageable" case like Buford -- is promoted by the gun prohibitionists in their illogical as the basis for further gun prohibition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Yeah, he's a typical assault weapon customer
And like the Beltway sniper, he got armed by the Bullseye Gun Shop...you know, the one Larry Craig and the NRA was trying to get lawsuit immunity for?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-04 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #51
57. I expect to see this kind of bigoted remark from the right
It truly saddens me to see it coming from someone who claims to be a progressive, liberal thinker. Prejudice is ugly no matter what its source, but coming from a camp that supposedly stands for inclusion, enlightened thought, open minded-ness, etc. seems tragically hypocritical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. ah, what a trenchant contribution

I'm just not sure what it had to do with "arming the left".

As was to be expected, this failure of both gun control
nd the mental health system -- which in this case had little
resources or interest to take on an "unmanageable" case like
Buford -- is promoted by the gun prohibitionists in their
illogical <?> as the basis for further gun prohibition.


Really? Where was that?

And to the extent it was, somewhere -- "this failure of both gun control and the mental health system" might suggest that both should be made more effective (if anybody's interested in actually preventing the kind of harm crazies with guns do, which I won't assume you are interested in, of course).

Or ... were you recommending doing away with the mental health system too?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Damn funny how
it was the gun rights crowd (and not any gun control group) that was scrambling to exempt from liability the scumbags that armed Furrow....

But then I learrned long ago that RKBA "logic" resembles pathology more than logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimsteuben Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-07-04 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. I am against a revolving-door prison system
and revolving-door mental hospital system. How did someone with a track record of dangerousness, a felony conviction no less, get out after only five months?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-04 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #54
56. Gee, Jim, isn't it the RKBA crowd
telling us that just wanting an assault weapon isn't proof of anything....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimsteuben Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-04 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Gee, Mr. B
whatever you say....

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-09-04 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #59
60. Yup, Buford is definitely the gun lobby's pin-up boy
which is why they fought so hard to get immunity for the scumbags that armed him, the Beltway Sniper and who knows how many other criminals.....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-04 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #47
61. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Romulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-04 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Welcome to the Gungeon, Lori
It doesn't matter who you are, or what you are saying.

If you say anything postive about firearms down here, you will be called an "asswipe lunatic" who "cares not a wit about the safety and security of your community."

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-04 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. actually

I don't know whom you're quoting --

"cares not a wit about the safety and security of your community"

-- but I sure hope that whoever said it actually spelled "whit" correctly!


I wonder what one might expect to be called when one states that another poster will be jumping for joy if Bush is re-elected?

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lori Price CLG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-04 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. Thank you, Romulus!!
That was such a sweet welcome. I believe in embracing the First Ten Amendments, *all* of them, <g>.

Thanks again for making me smile.
:)-Lori
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrBenchley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-04 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. Gee, rom....
Who was that spouting that they weren't going to vote for a Democrat in the Super Tuesday thread?

Why, it was the RKBA crowd.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-04 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Wickerman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-11-04 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
67. I'm locking this thread
I don't think where this is heading is where DU is at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC