IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Oldie, but goody.....:wink:

http://www.geocities.com/branlin/confis2.html
IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?

The most common argument against an armed population as an antidote to genocide is that, in the late twentieth century, the balance of power between governments and the people has tipped decisively towards the government side. How can a rag-tag collection of citizens with rifles, pistols, and shotguns hope to resist a modern standing army with artillery, helicopters, tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons? Such a question is most frequently posed by persons who have neither personal nor intellectual familiarity with the military or with guerilla warfare. If we actually try to answer the question, rather than just presuming the government will win, then the case for the uselessness of citizen resistance becomes weak indeed.

First, the purpose of civilian small arms in any kind of resistance scenario is not to defeat the federal army in a pitched battle, and then triumphantly march into Washington, D.C. Citizen militias and other popular forces, such as guerilla cadres, have rarely been strong enough to defeat a professional army in a head-on battle. Guerilla warfare aims to conduct quick surprise raids on the enemy, at a time and place of the guerillas' choosing. Almost as soon as the first casualties have been inflicted, the guerillas flee, before the army can bring its superior firepower to bear.

In the early years of a guerilla war, as Mao Tse-Tung explained, before guerrillas are strong enough to attack a professional army head on, heavy weapons are a detriment, impeding the guerrillas' mobility. As a war progresses, the guerrillas use ordinary firearms to capture better small arms and eventually heavy equipment.

The military history of the twentieth century shows rather clearly that if guerillas are willing to wage a prolonged war, they can be quite successful. As one author notes that far from proving invincible, in the vast majority of cases in this century in which they have confronted popular insurgencies, modern armies have been unable to suppress the insurgents. This is why the British no longer rule in Israel and Ireland, the French in Indo-China, Algeria, and Madagascar, the Portuguese in Angola, the whites in Rhodesia, or General Somoza, General Battista, or the Shah in Nicaragua, Cuba, and Iran respectively--not to mention the examples of the United States in Vietnam and the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

Moreover, guerillas need not overthrow a government in order to accomplish their purposes. During World War II, Yugoslav partisans did not directly overthrow the occupying Nazi government, but they did tie down a large fraction of the entire German army, leaving the German armies in the Eastern, Western, and Mediterranean fronts that much weaker. As the war ended, the presence of a well-equipped popular fighting force, ready to assume power, helped convince the advancing Soviet armies not to move into Yugoslavia, and consequently set the foundation for a Yugoslavia that would, relative to the rest of Eastern Europe, be less subject to a Soviet sphere of influence.

A popular guerilla resistance can also deprive an occupying government of much or all of the economic benefit that would normally be gained by occupation. And perhaps most importantly for purposes of this Article, an armed populace can ensure that any efforts to kill people or to send them to prisons and concentrations camps carry a price that must be paid by the government. If the Jews of Nazi-occupied Europe had shot the Nazi soldiers who came to herd them onto cattle cars, the Jews would still have been killed, but so would some of the Nazis. Would the Nazis have had such an easy time sending soldiers into the ghettos to collect the Jews if the soldiers knew that some of them would not come back alive? If the kind of people who specialize in perpetrating genocide are bullies by nature, how many bullies are willing to take a chance of getting shot by the intended victim? If potential massacre victims can plausibly threaten to harm at least a few of their attackers, then the calculus of the attackers may change dramatically. As Sanford Levinson notes, it is not implausible to argue that:

"[I]f all the Chinese citizens kept arms, their rulers would hardly have dared to massacre the [Tiananmen Square] demonstrators. . . ."

It is simply silly to respond that small arms are irrelevant against nuclear-armed states . . . . A state facing a totally disarmed population is in a far better position, for good or for ill, to suppress popular demonstrations and uprisings than one that must calculate the possibilities of its soldiers and officials being injured or killed.

Finally, even in cases where resistance saves not a single victim's life, resistance is still better than submission. Lloyd R. Cohen observes that:

"Dying even futilely defending yourself, your family, and your group has an honor and a dignity to it that is not vouchsafed by being helplessly slaughtered. Thus even if none had escaped from the Warsaw or Vilna Ghettos or the Sobibor extermination camp, those who took vengeance there honored themselves, their families, and their people."

Although the American federal government is the best-armed and wealthiest in the world, so is the American populace. Approximately half of all American households possess a gun. In the United States, there is more than one gun for every adult American. Hundreds of thousands (or millions) of Americans practice "reloading"-- the home manufacture of ammunition -- as a hobby. As of the fall of 1994, commercial American ammunition makers were producing well over a million rounds of ammunition per day and yet cannot keep up with the immense consumer demand. In response to the gun control laws being enacted and proposed in 1993 and 1994, the American gun-owning public has begun stockpiling weapons and ammunition in quantities that may be without historical precedent. Now that Guns and Ammo, a magazine with a circulation of half a million, has begun publishing tips about how to bury guns for long-term storage, it is safe to assume that a rather large number of gun owners are putting away a great deal of provisions for a rainy day.

Everything else that a guerilla army could want is also abundant in America: binoculars, camouflage (owned by millions of hunters), ham radios and other sophisticated communications equipment, and abundant quantities of well-preserved food.

There is something else in abundance in America that guerillas love: a place to hide. The great swamps of the South, the thick forests of the Rocky Mountains and the Northwest, and the dense, crowded cities throughout the nation are only a few of the American locales that would be eminently suitable to providing havens for guerilla fighters.

The American military is also powerful. But, as the authors point out, the police and military combined (assuming that every soldier and every police officer would assist a genocidal government) comprise only about one percent of the U.S. population. Many of the modern army's most effective weapons--such as tanks, artillery, and helicopters--are easy to deploy in a Kuwaiti desert, but considerably less effective in a built-up city. Indeed, a million dollar tank can be incapacitated by a Molotov Cocktail (a glass bottle filled with gasoline and topped with a wick that is lit just before the cocktail is thrown). As a last resort, a dictatorial government could initiate nuclear warfare, but such a step would risk provoking the non-militant faction of the population into full-scale rebellion, risk provoking a faction of the army into attempting a coup, and by destroying the bombed area, certainly deprive the government of any benefit of controlling the area.

Finally, the most important benefit of defensive arms is their deterrent power. As long as a potential dictator (or a potentially genocidal dictator) must take into account very serious risks involved with taking action against the American people, then the prospect for such actions being taken becomes markedly smaller.

No one can forecast exactly what would happen if the American people took up arms against a dictatorial government. But there is no evidence from the history of warfare, or from any other source, to support a simplistic assertion that resistance could not possibly achieve any success.



When to Resist

A much more plausible objection to the authors' thesis is that, even though an armed populace can resist genocide, the population may not know when to resist. Had European Jews shot the soldiers who were herding them into cattle cars for transportation to concentration camps, the survival rate for European Jews might have been much higher. But there were other instances, some of them well-known to European Jewry, where non-resistance proved to be the correct approach.

The classic example involves the Babylonian captivity of Biblical times. As the Babylonian Empire of King Nebuchadnezzar was sweeping westward, the tiny kingdom of Judea fell within its path. As the final Judean stronghold, Jerusalem, was besieged, the Jews faced a choice of surrendering, with the likelihood of being taken into slavery and exile, or fighting to the last man. The prophet Jeremiah insisted on the former course, and that is the course Judea's king eventually chose.

As things turned out, that was the right choice historically for the Jews. The Babylonian captivity turned out not to be terribly arduous; many Jews grew quite prosperous in Babylon. Captivity in Babylon also took the Jews away from Canaanite influence, meaning that the continuing struggle to resist syncretism between Canaanite nature religion and strict Yahwism was ended. The Judaism that emerged from the Babylonian captivity was a purer, stronger form of Judaism than the one that had been under continuous Canaanite assimilative pressure, although some Babylonian myths and legends were incorporated. Within a few generations, Babylon was conquered by the Persian Empire of King Cyrus, and Cyrus allowed many of the Jews to return to Jerusalem and begin rebuilding the Temple. Eventually, re-establishment of an independent Judean state was allowed. Acceptance of transportation and captivity turned out to be a much better long-term choice than a battle to the last man.

During World War II, the Japanese-Americans who were herded into concentration camps fared better by accepting several years of confinement than they would have by taking to the California hills and launching a guerilla war.

How is one to know that the impending forced march or transportation by cattle car is intended not merely for an onerous relocation, but for mass murder? Generally, one cannot. As the authors point out in their chapter on Germany, the Jewish policy of submission had been, for over 1800 years, the policy which saved the most Jewish lives. Not until the Jews realized that Hitler intended to murder them all did Jewish resistance groups begin taking action.

Of the seven genocidal governments studied in Lethal Laws, not one announced its intention to its victims. All of the victims were told that they were being temporarily relocated or another lie in order to induce them not to resist. And one of the reasons that the lies were believed by so many people is that there are many governments throughout world history which have sent people on forced marches or other forms of forced relocation and not killed them.

One guide for when a subject people should resist may be the people's assessment of the government's degree of hatred. King Nebuchadnezzar was no anti-Semite and bore the Jews no more ill will than he bore the people of any nation he conquered. Hitler was obviously different: hatred of Jews was one of the fundamental principles of his life, as he had demonstrated throughout his public career.

Forewarned is forearmed, but the problem of knowing when to take up arms poses a significant challenge to the authors' thesis that gun ownership can always prevent genocide. Even if all of the genocide victims discussed in Lethal Laws had possessed their own semiautomatic rifle, it is far from certain that they all would have decided at the right time to shoot enemy soldiers. Still, some of the genocide victims might have done so, and the more that did so, the less genocide there might have been. It appears that, despite the hopes of the authors, civilian gun ownership may sometimes, but not always, prove capable of stopping genocide.


It Can't Happen Here

It did happen here. The conquest of North America by the European settlers of the future United States was accomplished by "the extermination of some Native American tribes and the near-extinction of others, by U.S. government forces . . . ." The forced march of the Cherokee people from the southeastern United States into Oklahoma along the "Trail of Tears" resulted in the deaths of a large fraction of the Cherokee population, and at best, differs quantitatively rather than qualitatively from the 20th-century genocides described in Lethal Laws. Hitler looked with admiration at how the United States government had cleared the continent of Indians, and he used the U.S. government's 19th-century policies as a model for his own 20th-century policies of clearing Lebensraum for the German people.

In the twentieth century, the United States government forced 100,000 United States citizens into concentration camps. In 1941, American citizens of Japanese descent were herded into concentration camps run by the United States government. Like the victims of other mass deportations, these Americans were allowed to retain only the property they could carry with them. Everything else -- including family businesses built up over generations -- had to be sold immediately at fire-sale prices or abandoned. The camps were "ringed with barbed wire fences and guard towers." During the war, the federal government pushed Central and South American governments to round up persons of Japanese ancestry in those nations and have them shipped to the U.S. concentration camps.

The American concentration camps were not death camps. The American-held prisoners were subject to strict discipline, but not to mass murder. After the American victory at Midway in June 1942, the threat of a Japanese landing on the mainland U.S. vanished, and the tide in the Pacific began to turn. Nevertheless, the incarceration of Japanese-Americans continued long after any plausible national security justification had vanished.

But, the authors ask, what if the war had gone differently? What if a frustrated, angry America, continuing to lose a war in the Pacific, had been tempted to take revenge on the "enemy" that was, in the concentration camps, a safe target. Would killing all the Japanese be a potential policy option? In 1944, by which time America's eventual victory in the war seemed assured, the Gallup Poll asked Americans, "What do you think we should do with Japan, as a country, after the war?" Thirteen percent of Americans chose the response "Kill all Japanese people."

Sadly, Roger Daniels, the author of a recent study of the Japanese internment, concludes that a concentration camp episode could indeed happen again in America. He points out that in 1950, a time by which the oppressiveness and uselessness of the American concentration camps during World War II had been well-established, Congress enacted the Emergency Detention Act, which gave the Attorney General unilateral authority to imprison Americans at will, using the World War II concentration camps as a model. Fortunately, the law was repealed in 1971, but as Daniels points out, the original detentions occurred even though they were not authorized by any law.

Disarming citizens before killing or oppressing them is a time-honored American tradition. After the Civil War, the first act of the Ku Klux Klan (like the Khmer Rouge) was to round up all the guns in the hands of ex-slaves. Only then did other oppressions begin. From the middle of the nineteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth, race riots in the United States usually took the form of white mobs rampaging against innocent blacks. Black attempts to resist or to shoot back were often followed with governmental efforts to disarm the blacks.

Are modern Americans so dramatically different from their ancestors that concentration camps or mob violence are safely confined to the past? While Mayor of New York City, Edward Koch (who is Jewish) proposed that the federal government set up concentration camps for drug users, in remote locations such as Nevada and Alaska. Under Mayor Koch's successor David Dinkins, after a Jewish religious leader's driver killed a black child, rampaging black mobs conducted a three-day pogrom against a Jewish section of Brooklyn and killed an Australian Jew who was visiting the United States, while the police passively refused to intervene.

Hatemongers such as Louis Farrakhan are now treated as important leaders by an increasingly large segment of the American black community, including the NAACP, which for decades before had been steadfastly opposed to racial hatred and anti-Semitism. In an age of Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, is America immune from the influence of bigots, crackpots, hatemongers, or potential dictators? A Klansman and former Nazi named David Duke was elected to the State House of Representatives in Louisiana in 1989. He then won 44% of the vote against the incumbent U.S. Senator in 1990. The next year, he won 39% of the vote in a race for Governor, garnering over 60% of the vote from the white middle-class and from white Protestants.

What other countries can be presumed forever safe from hatemongering rule? In August 1994, the Labor Minister of the Italian government -- a government which a half-century earlier was a Fascist ally of Hitler -- blamed the fall of the lira on the "Jewish lobby" in the United States. Virtually none of the world's democratic nations can boast an uninterrupted history of democracy, nor can they claim that racist or anti-Semitic elements are of no significance in the nation's current political life.

Imagine that the year is 1900. You are told that within fifty years, a nation in the world will kill over six million members of a religious minority. Which nation would you pick? If you were well-informed about world affairs, it is very unlikely that you would pick Germany. In 1900, Germany was a democratic, progressive nation. Jews living there enjoyed fuller acceptance in society than they did in Britain, France, or the United States. In 1900, probably much less than 13% of the German population favored killing all Jews. Thirty-five years later, circumstances had changed.

The prospect of a dictatorial American government thirty-five years from now seems almost impossible. What about a hundred years from today? Two hundred? It is possible to say, with near-certainty, that "it can't happen here -- in the near future." But in the long run, no one can say; the fact that it did happen here in the nineteenth century, coupled with the fact that American concentration camps were opened in the twentieth century, ought to suggest that only someone wilfully blind to American and world history would attempt to guarantee to future generations of potential American victims that "it can't happen here."

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Practicality is irrelevant. Moral duty is relevant.

Even if utter defeat is inevitable, resistance is a moral imperative. Surrendering to wrong makes one wrong.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

"Dying even futilely defending yourself, your family, and your group has an honor and a dignity to it that is not vouchsafed by being helplessly slaughtered. Thus even if none had escaped from the Warsaw or Vilna Ghettos or the Sobibor extermination camp, those who took vengeance there honored themselves, their families, and their people."




THE 300 WOULD AGREE.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

EXCELLENT article. makes me think that sniper rifles might be a good investment.

any suggestions on practical, accurate, long-range weapons that wont break the bank?

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Good read.:ok:

As to a 'sniper rifle',any hunting rifle in .308 or larger will do...an dis probably cheap in the pawn shops right around now.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Is being TORTURED in a FEMA facility practicle?

I think not. We (me, myself, and I) will fight to the death if some vampires want to march into my property and trample my god given rights.

I trust many of you will do the same.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

I have no intrest in engaging anyone, will be long gone.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

I was watching "V" the other day and got to wondering if I really had what it takes to make a stand like he did. I know I don't have the resources to do anything on the scale he did. But if the thugs came to my door, would I be willing to sacrifice my family by taking that first shot.

I deal with some pretty low life people everyday. I know which ones that come into my business that would just as soon shoot me as look at me. Guys come in every couple of weeks casing the place. Fortunately we have a lot of employees, lots of traffic and low cash flow so we turn out to be not very attractive. I have had several confrontations with these people and have no doubt that I could pull the trigger if need be.

But when it comes to a military type evacuation/relocation I wonder if I would be willing to put my family in a fire fight against a well trained military team. I should add that my wife is in poor health and my son is only 14. Yeah, they know how to use their weapons of choice but we are still not talking much firepower. Seperate us, put them somewhere safe, and I can make that sacrfice in peace.

When would I make the decision to resist. I don't know, not having specifics. But I can tell you this - I can't imagine why thay would want to put me in a camp except to break my will or exterminate me. So I guess that really leaves me no choice.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Flight baby. I doubt that there will be enough sheeple to stand with you. We are a country of wimps. The strong will figure out that the best policy is to start over. Alaska? Texas? Idaho?

The Constitution goes with us.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Well if we all committed to do one sneaky random individual leaderless act only every year or so in our own fields of expertice; and if there are a hundred of us to every one of them; that would mean that each one of them has to respond to two acts of resistance every week. Tireing. Most individuals in constant combat situations break after 180-210 days.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Yeah, and next year when "we" are all in jail, we get new suckers to step up and do their part.

:bear_rolleyes:


Whether resistance is practical depends on which kind of resistance. In defense of one's own life, family or property armed resistance is perfectly justified, imo.

But in order to break the system, I think the only hope is massive but peaceful resistance. If a sufficient number of people refuses to pay certain fees or taxes for example, the effect on the system is greater than a few random acts of violence, and those forms of resistance are much harder to prosecute. Also, since they don't involve destroying private property or causing personal injury, you'd probably have an easier time getting people to resist in non-violent ways.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Take a look at Savage bolt action rifles.

Like model 110 and 111. They can be had for around $350 w/o scope.

Look for .308 or 30-06, good ballistics, plentiful ammo. There are better rounds but they would be much harder to come by in hard times or remote locations.

Unless you are willing to spend a lot of time and effort to become a real long distance shooter it is probably a waste of $$ to buy a really long range rifle.

If you prefer military surplus look at a Mosin Nagant sniper model. 7.62x54R ammo. [similar to 30-06] I've seen these recently for around $400 with scope.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Why cant a State recede? I wish mine would. I was born 3 years before we became a State I wish we would just recede. I know we will not but I wish we would....I could see it working very well.

This is why I wonder who or what will organize?
Without it none stand a chance alone. Eventually there will need to be organization.
Doesn't it seem like more & more have bail out rage? Seems so to me. Perhaps I am reading too much but I am seeing anger more & more.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

I'm building another means of resistance.

Here is the current project.

BTW I love the idea of armed resistance when required but I wish we had a better way to organise our forces, IE by the time it starts to happen the communication methods we currently use will be disabled and or infiltrated with disinformation agents.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

LIBERTY OR DEATH :36_1_28:


I will take at least one NWO thug off the count before my death.



MAD as HELL

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

This is a great thread to get us all thinking...

Everyone here will be forced to choose which side of the line they will stand on....
Problem is, if you choose the path of resistence, you have to know in your heart and mind when to draw your weapon and fight.....each of us must consider this question carefully and erect a mental line in the sand which, when crossed, signals us that the time to act is here.

Think carefully about this...if you do not, the governemtn thugs may steal your liberties by gradual removals...they are not stupid...they know that if they take away freedom a little at a time, most people will rationalize away the need to resist at each point.

Think about this....when will you act? At what point?

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

[/QUOTE]This is why I wonder who or what will organize?
Without it none stand a chance alone. Eventually there will need to be organization.
Doesn't it seem like more & more have bail out rage? Seems so to me. Perhaps I am reading too much but I am seeing anger more & more.[/QUOTE]

I think maybe that is the reason for my hesitation. Lack of organization. I hear and see more anger and resentment but very little in the way of leadership and organization. I feel kind of alone out here. Knowing that there are others to organize with, and that would have my back would help a lot. Anybody I talk to that I might consider worthwhile in a worst case scenario are still in a wait and see attitude.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

I'm still pondering on how to answer this ~ good question. :applause_

Here's some other thoughts :

#1 - Talk......we do lots of this 'Acting Tough' and spouting off how we'll use force if we have to.........yattta......yatta.

#2 - Action........but who here will WALK the WALK ??? .....I mean actually back up your stance with bullets if you have to ?

........

Ok, back to pondering - AD

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

These are questions I have pondered also.

The dumbing down of the population has extended even to us knowing when we should or shouldn't be defending ourselves with violent force. Sad. 50 years ago, you damn well knew if you were within your rights or not.........now..we're scared of the consequences.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

What is the right time? When the roundups start? What if they start with a group many believe should be gone - like illegal aliens? Do we sit by and say good riddence? But then, who is next? When they come for me and mine? There will definitely be resistance, but bugging out is too low on the option scale for us. I guess by then fear and anger will rule the day. My choice may be madee for me.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Scenario #1 - Armed forces (military, swat teams, or otherwise) storm your neighborhood demanding & confiscating firearms from all citizens.

Scenario #2 - Police vans & cruisers storm your neighborhood demanding & confiscating firearms from all citizens.

Scenario #3 - A Police squad car with 2 officers roll through your neighborhood asking for all citizens to surrender their firearms.

Scenario #4 - Notices are issue to each resident to surrender their firearms at XX location within their town or city.

.........

My guess is that Scenario #1 might cause the most Violent reaction by anyone not in agreement with a confiscation policy. However, I think Scenario #1 is also the most unlikely to occur yet everyone here seems to be prepping for it.

:bear_rolleyes:

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

They will find you.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Here's one question that tends to be overlooked in these hypotheticals:

What are the specific goals of the revolt?

:dontknow:




It's a good thing that starting some major violence doesn't come easy, imo.

If you study revolutions, there is usually a long period of misery and pent up frustration, during which a few may try to revolt but are usually quickly put down. Everyone may be sick and tired for a long time, but not everyone is ready to risk their lives at the same time.

If things get bad enough, that pent up frustration can be unleashed by a single event or by thoughtless gov't action. Like a spark in a powder keg, certain events which, under other circumstances might have proven insignificant, can cause people who have been miserable and frustrated long enough to suddenly, without much planning or organizing, coalesce around what suddenly becomes an obvious common goal.

"Let them eat cake", or the salt tax in India, for example.


The point is that in order for any significant number of people to be willing to risk their lives and have any chance at gaining enough support to actually succeed, things have to be pretty bad for quite a while. Long enough that most people have lost all hope in achieving positive change through conventional means, like voting, spending and suing. And that's not necessarily a bad thing, either.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

How about retrieving your Constitutional freedoms ?

Is that a good enough goal ?

Or do you feel its outdated and or Obsolete.

The only way that firearms could be taken legally is via due process.

And then only if the individual has broken some law that merits such.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Certainly sounds good enough, but I asked for specific, not worthy. That is for each to judge.

Just to scratch the surface: Do you mean the Constitution plus amendments, or only certain amendments, or no amendments?

What does your interpretation of recovering your Constitutional freedoms entail?

Some specifics are pretty popular, like "abolish the Fed", but other than that, what is your goal going to mean for most people in practical terms?

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Hey, that's a great start !

ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE !

:applause_ ....I like that

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Well that one's easy... common sense, really.

:coolbeer:



Now, if it just meant something to most people.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

If a small handful of people here in the USA tried, they could bring the whole country to it's knees.

Is there anyone who is aware how fragile our power distribution system is nationwide?

How about how fragile having running water is?

How about the delivery of fuel for you to heat your home or drive your car?

In every instance, each of these can be breached by one person who does so with stealth and silence.

If you are thinking about facing a large military force head on, forget about it, because THAT'S what THEY train for.

What they don't train for is having their meal interrupted by a mortar lobbed into the mess area.

They don't train for their water source being contaminated with something like 'bovine scat'...

You guys are thinking way too macho. Think small. Hit and run. Take out ONE small target. It does eventually add up.

When you finally see the TV and internet go offline, THEN YOU WILL KNOW 'IT'S TIME'...

Shutdown of communication avenues IS the first harbinger of dictitorial powers to take over.

I'm just sayin...

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

We'd better resist now, or it will become futile.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Good point and don't forget Cell towers nationwide.

:wink:

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

The pigs and military punks CANNOT succeed against all of us. Is letting your wife and son to be raped psychologically, if not literally, by the system better than making your stand in your castle? Is life so precious that you're willing to pay any price to prolong it? I'm not, and none of our great forebears would have, either. Life without freedom is no life at all.

Hollywood likes to paint the US military as "invincible," but as we've seen in Iraq, ill-trained, ill-equipped resistance fighters have denied victory to the "invincible" US military for years. Military operations against Americans will be even further stacked against the US military, since most of their base of support which has sustained them in Iraq ("support our troops" idiocy) will be long-gone, and most citizens will recognize them for what they are: thugs & terrorists...the real terrorists.

"Just leave me alone, please. But if you choose not to honor that, be prepared for some of you to die, even if I must die, too."

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Non-violent "resistance" has been a consistent failure. Why are you advocating it?

People have been "non-violently resisting" taxes and government orders for thousands of years, but the taxes and "laws" keep coming. Only armed force has made real change. The Magna Carta didn't come around by a sit-in. The Declaration of Independence didn't materialize from a march.

I am not advocating igniting hostilities. That would be dumb and reckless. What I am advocating is the God-given right to self-defense by any means necessary, regardless of what "the law" says is acceptable. The real law regarding self-defense in this country is the supreme law of the land, the Ninth Amendment, which guarantees armed self-defense and the castle doctrine. Cops want to violate those rights? Then such cops are violent criminals who should be "dealt with" exactly as armed muggers, rapists, and other home invaders. The system is going to open fire on non-hostile American citizens who are asserting their rights on a more consistent basis, and that will be the government's declaration of war against the American people. At that point, we hold 100% of the moral right to do what is necessary.

Some of us will not go quietly into the night. The pigs and military goons who are willing to prostitute themselves to criminal politicians are going to have guess which of us is which, and ask themselves, "is doing my 'job' worth the chance I will never see my kids again?"

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Great post and to the point...

IF resisting tyranny was called for I certainly would hope I am never in the situation of having to shoot at others...that would mean failure.

A chainsaw,cutting torch,hijacked truck would be better than a rifle in my mind...of course the rifle come sin handy too.:wink:

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Scenario 1 might be most unlikely, but preparing for it covers all options for the other scenarios. Further, the failure of scenario 4, for example, would result in escalation, until all firearms were turned in, or we got to scenario 1.

Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Yes, life is precious to me. My life, my family's lives, my friends, they are all precious to me. That's what make this such a difficult discussion. Do I want to give up my liberties - no. Would I lay down my life to protect my family and there freedom - yes. But, I don't have any plans to martyr myself for nothing. What kind of freedom is gained from lying dead in a swamp somewhere, no one knowing why or how you disappeared.

From my perspective, I am looking at this as one person surrounded by slumbering children. Most of the people I have talked to are concerned, angry, etc. But they are all Republicrats who still carry a faith in the system that I just don't share. For the most part they believe that these problems will be worked out by our leaders. They will be able to live their normal lives.

Hopefully they will awaken and some of that organizatin discussed earlier can begin. If it is not too late.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Very good point and likely very probable.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Gee, Officer, I had to sell my guns to buy medicine for my kids a few years ago, here is the pawn shop reciepts, sorry I can't help you, say do you have any kids, they are a treasure to watch growing up.:9536:

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Well, to quote 'ole Blood -n- Guts......

:s15:

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Some great video & I forget which maybe Zietgeist? Said PROTECT the INTERNET I believe this is why. It is our means of communication.
So many understand its workings to so maybe they could not put it down? Servers could be mobile? Who knows..........???

This is very good & what I wonder also....
I was sick to my stomach when Ruby & Waco happened & none helped. Yes I know I didnt either but I am on a rock in the pacific.
I thought that was a great time for like minded folks to step up.
What would they do? The govt I mean...It was on TV they couldn't go in & blaze all.
Waco especially I couldn't believe...Texas??? anyone in Texas would have shot those guys coming in the windows unannounced like they did. Why didnt they turn out & help? I think mainly because the media painted them as child abusers & religious nuts.
They would do the same to others & use the media to portray them as bad & themselves as helping the innocent as usual.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

My specifics are :

Abolish the FED, Bring back sound gold backed money, Kick the UN out of the US and the US will withdraw its membership in the UN.

Common law is the only law.

The 14th and the 16th Amendments are abolished.

#1 reason the 14th created a new class of slaves for the Federal Government and the 16th well that's just wrong as it turned a Direct tax that was unconstitutional into a legal tax ? WTF.

As I see it they had to cheat to get a Income Tax via the 16th Amendment.

Maybe this makes sense to others here as well ?

Government has grown way way beyond its means and it needs to be stopped.

The points above are all I can come up with at the moment As I think of more I will edit the post.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Where are all the retired and disillusioned military. They should be in the forfront and in a position to organize. Plus you must recognize that the real enemy is not your fellow American, but the Global bankers and the Industrialists. If you dig deep enough, you will find that they are still the nazis that went underground to prepare to defeat the USA through commerce, rather than militarily. They have infiltrated and taken over the government and intelligence agencies. For them the war has never ended. They hate the American people and seek to destroy them. The real solution is to seek out and dispose of the vermin that cause international conflicts all the while supporting both sides through loans and arms sales. Then re establish a government and take personal responsibility to ensure that they are prepared to govern "for the people" It is time for the citizens to make a list of the true enemies of the state.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

You know sometimes I wonder about a tax revolt.
Yeah not glamorous but............. What if this April 15th everyone said Nah I dont think so ........ We gave & you wasted it all.
Bail this out !!

What do you think?

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

It would work, but we need over a hundred million or so people to do it.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Dying in my own castle, my home, is far preferable than dying in some government "freedom center" far away from everyone and everything I know.

Aleksander Solzhenitsyn told us how he and his comrades regretted not resisting with maximum force when the cops showed up to haul them away to gulag. Many of his comrades never saw their families or homes again, and lived their last days in animal-like existence. Even ten years of extended "life" is not worth that.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

They will also shut off electricity and the water supply. Fueling stations will also be guarded by the military. Don't forget who these people are and what they're capable of. They are pure evil.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

The best way to resist is to attack the top of the pyramid and avoid the bottom enforcers.

With out fiat and bankers, modern state warfare is impossible...

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

But will that ever bring about change? Take out the head looter and there are one thousand other creeps waiting to jump into the void and continue the charade....barring an outright violent overthrow, the absolute, best way to resisist is this..

STOP PLAYING THEIR F*CKING GAME....SHUT OFF THE TEEVEE...DO NOT BUY THEIR PRODUCTS, DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THEIR SERVICES, PAY OFF YOUR DEBTS, AND LIVE FREE...THEY NEED OUR MONEY, WITHOUT IT, THEY ARE POWERLESS

some simple examples...

- stop buying over-priced books at the chain retailers...go to your local library, it's free (well, not really, since you are taxed locally for it, but what the hell)..better yet, start a book-swap...
- don't pay $10 freaking dollars to see some Hollywood-Jew movie, that is loaded with subliminal messages aimed at getting you to consume more
- if you have the land, grow your own veggies....you'd be amazed at how much you can get from a quarter-acre garden; raise chickens, it's cheap and easy to do (I'm planning to do this this spring, my neighbors are going to hate me)
- practice food canning; learn how to construct a simple root cellar
- learn to cook from scratch; this is a biggie that I am trying to teach my kids; if you learn how to cook right, you can make a meal for $5-6...the pre-processed supermarket foods are SHIT

etc. etc.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. My question relates to timing more than anything else. When do you squeeze the trigger? In this internet world of hypotheticals it's easy to say that the first sombich that shows up at my door gets a belly full of lead. I know everyone may well have to face that decision somday, and each of us will have to live with the consequences of our actions. But timing is everything, too soon and you disappear leaving nothing to the cause. Too late and . . . well it's too late.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Leadership can and will be infiltrated or assassinated.

What needs to be enchanced is the organizational skills and tools of those who choose to resist. The resistance must stay in small groups (cell of 3-9) that act completely autononmus of each other but still share a common vision and goal.


T

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

I think scenario 4 is most likely. They will first offer to "purchase" firearms at a fair price like they did in Australia a while back. Then after they will send a certified letter stating that must surrender your firearms at a certain location. Next they will get your neighbor or friend to turn you in for a reward.

When the second amendment rights were recently discussed in the Supreme court The State of Montana threatend to seperate if the judgment went against thier constitution (right to bear arms). Of all the states Montana seems the best place for mass migration of freedom lovers when your preps start to run low.

Re: IS RESISTANCE PRACTICAL?
 

Whether it is practical or not is irrelevant. Resistance is the ONLY choice. How it is tactically accomplished is where the questions and answers lie. Good article that essentially says that.