PDA

View Full Version : To secure a free state?


steadyrock
11-28-2007, 2:13 PM
Hey guys,

Of the many reasons given in support of our 2A rights and in defense of RKBA causes, one of the most popular is to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government gone wrong (a rifle behind every blade of grass, etc.). Makes sense to me, and I'm very thankful for those rights indeed. HOWEVER, it does beg the question: Has anybody in the US, since 1776, ever successfully USED their firearms to fend off the government when it has gone astray? It makes for great theory but in every instance I can think of, shooting at (or even threatening to shoot at) members of the government has brought a very swift and unfavorable response. It didn't work in Waco, it didn't work at Ruby Ridge, it didn't even work for Calvin Greenup in Montana (although he was a bit cukoo to begin with). Some might argue that the fact that we don't have to utilize that right is the best argument in its favor and I would tend to agree (the best insurance claim is the one you never have to make, etc.), but what say you? What are your thoughts?

I'm not trying to troll or bait flame with this, but I think it's an interesting topic for discussion. Anyone?

DedEye
11-28-2007, 2:24 PM
Hey guys,

Of the many reasons given in support of our 2A rights and in defense of RKBA causes, one of the most popular is to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government gone wrong (a rifle behind every blade of grass, etc.). Makes sense to me, and I'm very thankful for those rights indeed. HOWEVER, it does beg the question: Has anybody in the US, since 1776, ever successfully USED their firearms to fend off the government when it has gone astray? It makes for great theory but in every instance I can think of, shooting at (or even threatening to shoot at) members of the government has brought a very swift and unfavorable response. It didn't work in Waco, it didn't work at Ruby Ridge, it didn't even work for Calvin Greenup in Montana (although he was a bit cukoo to begin with). Some might argue that the fact that we don't have to utilize that right is the best argument in its favor and I would tend to agree (the best insurance claim is the one you never have to make, etc.), but what say you? What are your thoughts?

I'm not trying to troll or bait flame with this, but I think it's an interesting topic for discussion. Anyone?

The Battle of Athens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens) was the first thing that came to my mind.

Still, the idea of fighting off a tyrannical government with arms ignores the very good point that "when tyranny comes to the United States, it will be wrapped in the American flag."

Forever-A-Soldier
11-28-2007, 2:29 PM
Though I can't say anyone has "successfully" fended off the .Gov since 1776, there have been many attempts in our 200 year plus history. The thing to remember is that our Founding Fathers, considered it among our inalienable rights both to be armed and to overthrow our own government should it become as tyrannical as the British had become to the colonists in 1775.

The thing that gets historically lost in the debates, especially in regards to "the militia" was that in the 1600s/1700s militia groups were made up of your town citizens with initial leadership of the militia selected by your town selectmen (what today would be your city councilmen.) Together it was your town militias that made up the forces that protected your colony.

My personal opinion is we need to return to this concept of the militia. So when natural disaster or other calamity stirkes, the town calls out its citizens, supplemented by law enforcement to deal with crisis situations without relying on BIG GOVERNMENT (either State or Federal) to deal with your local or regional problems.

I highly recommed reading the book "Red Dawn at Lexington" for a look at early colonial militias and armed citizens.

F.A.S. Out

Scarecrow Repair
11-28-2007, 2:50 PM
Deacons came pretty close 1964-69, holding off the KKK who operated with open government blessing at the city and state level. They stopped the KKK many times when the police were standing around waiting for the KKK to finish the dirty work before they moved in to arrest the beating victims, and prevented some arrests. They eventually scared the powers-that-be into upholding the law.

The book is very very interesting. The movie is a pretty good summary, but for the details read the book.

rkt88edmo
11-28-2007, 2:50 PM
Though I can't say anyone has "successfully" fended off the .Gov since 1776, there have been many attempts in our 200 year plus history. The thing to remember is that our Founding Fathers, considered it among our inalienable rights both to be armed and to overthrow our own government should it become as tyrannical as the British had become to the colonists in 1775.

The thing that gets historically lost in the debates, especially in regards to "the militia" was that in the 1600s/1700s militia groups were made up of your town citizens with initial leadership of the militia selected by your town selectmen (what today would be your city councilmen.) Together it was your town militias that made up the forces that protected your colony.

My personal opinion is we need to return to this concept of the militia. So when natural disaster or other calamity stirkes, the town calls out its citizens, supplemented by law enforcement to deal with crisis situations without relying on BIG GOVERNMENT (either State or Federal) to deal with your local or regional problems.

I highly recommed reading the book "Red Dawn at Lexington" for a look at early colonial militias and armed citizens.

F.A.S. Out

The hard part is that our smallest organizational unit tends to be the city, and most cities are way too big for a "town" muster. Which leads us to the neighborhood level, for which there is no effective leadership set up, and in some cases - hardly any contact between neighbors at all (as we moved away from our general relationships to our highly specialized and differentiated relationships?)

bulgron
11-28-2007, 3:13 PM
The hard part is that our smallest organizational unit tends to be the city, and most cities are way too big for a "town" muster. Which leads us to the neighborhood level, for which there is no effective leadership set up, and in some cases - hardly any contact between neighbors at all (as we moved away from our general relationships to our highly specialized and differentiated relationships?)

We have a neighborhood association where I live, which is really intended as an anti-crime thing. Interest is low, though, and we can't get anyone to come to the meetings, probably because crime really isn't a big problem in our neighborhood.

I'm sure that suggesting the association arm itself and conduct military drills would be one way to make it exciting to everyone here in "guns r evil" land. :D

steadyrock
11-28-2007, 3:31 PM
We have a neighborhood association where I live, which is really intended as an anti-crime thing. Interest is low, though, and we can't get anyone to come to the meetings, probably because crime really isn't a big problem in our neighborhood.

I'm sure that suggesting the association arm itself and conduct military drills would be one way to make it exciting to everyone here in "guns r evil" land. :D

I don't know about you, but the idea of arming my Homeowner's Association scares me more than anything the .gov could ever bring. Those people are out of freaking control where I live. I can almost see it now: "The operative left his garbage cans on the curb after 5pm on the day of collection, we had no choice but take decisive action". :saddam:

Bizcuits
11-28-2007, 3:44 PM
it didn't work at Ruby Ridge

Randy Weaver lost his son, his wife and likely much of his will to live.

However, he is a free man, who owns land and able to see his remaining two daughters grow up. He won a law suit and walked away with a large amount of money.

It was a small battle, but considering he isn't rotting in prison, I'd consider him on the side of victory.

petey
11-28-2007, 3:52 PM
In some ways, the Whiskey Rebellion of 1791 shows the intent of the 2A. Farmers and distillers harassed and fought against tax collectors. George Washington ordered up the militias of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and a few other states. A few people were arrested, but by and large, rebellion simply melted away.

The Whiskey rebellion was interesting on two accounts:

1. The Federal government called upon its citizens to take up their own personal arms and defend the nation.

2. After the rebellion, no attempt was made to disarm the citizens, even in the areas that rebelled.

SemiAutoSam
11-28-2007, 4:12 PM
IMHO we are already there and past that point that government has become tyrannical and gone past the point with its insane and unconstitutional laws.

When they can tell us what rifle we can and cant have depending on its ergonomic features.




Hey guys,

Of the many reasons given in support of our 2A rights and in defense of RKBA causes, one of the most popular is to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government gone wrong (a rifle behind every blade of grass, etc.). Makes sense to me, and I'm very thankful for those rights indeed. HOWEVER, it does beg the question: Has anybody in the US, since 1776, ever successfully USED their firearms to fend off the government when it has gone astray? It makes for great theory but in every instance I can think of, shooting at (or even threatening to shoot at) members of the government has brought a very swift and unfavorable response. It didn't work in Waco, it didn't work at Ruby Ridge, it didn't even work for Calvin Greenup in Montana (although he was a bit cukoo to begin with). Some might argue that the fact that we don't have to utilize that right is the best argument in its favor and I would tend to agree (the best insurance claim is the one you never have to make, etc.), but what say you? What are your thoughts?

I'm not trying to troll or bait flame with this, but I think it's an interesting topic for discussion. Anyone?

Fjold
11-28-2007, 5:44 PM
Randy Weaver lost his son, his wife and likely much of his will to live.

However, he is a free man, who owns land and able to see his remaining two daughters grow up. He won a law suit and walked away with a large amount of money.

It was a small battle, but considering he isn't rotting in prison, I'd consider him on the side of victory.

I don't consider trading my wife's and son's lives for a large amount of money a win.

rkt88edmo
11-28-2007, 5:51 PM
We have a neighborhood association where I live, which is really intended as an anti-crime thing. Interest is low, though, and we can't get anyone to come to the meetings, probably because crime really isn't a big problem in our neighborhood.

I'm sure that suggesting the association arm itself and conduct military drills would be one way to make it exciting to everyone here in "guns r evil" land. :D


My HOA has designated my street as a tacticuldesac :P your point about your association is well taken, I'm happy to have some neighbors who I know are more like minded than not.

Bizcuits
11-28-2007, 6:30 PM
I don't consider trading my wife's and son's lives for a large amount of money a win.

Didn't say it was, The fact he isn't ROTTING IN PRISON, is. Not being dead or in prison is a victory.

metalhead357
11-28-2007, 6:45 PM
Didn't say it was, The fact he isn't ROTTING IN PRISON, is. Not being dead or in prison is a victory.

Amen...and it did come with its price. Little in way of compence to him but as the saying goes "sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with blood".


As already pointed out- the mere fact of TRYING does garner attention...albeit usually lethal from the poweres that be....but in that act (legal or not) some would argue that the person(s) excercising that right to rebel are martyering themselves for others to follwo until things are indeed changed.

I love my Constitution and goobermint...I'm just afraid of the goobers running it;)