🚀 go-pugleaf

[dc.general removed from distribution]

dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey) writes in response to me:

>>	Protect yourself. Protecting yourself is not a matter of hardware,
>>it's a matter of will and resolve. If you've got those, then the tools, be
>>they knives, guns, or nukes, are just an implementation detail.
>>	There's a very big difference between a revolutionary and a well
>>armed whiner. Most of the NRA-propaganda spouting dweebs I see are the
>>latter.
>
>There surely has to be a middle ground between a revolutionary and 
>a well armed whiner ;-)

	I'm not convinced there is. First, let me clarify one point.
I was responding to the "who will protect us from the protectors"
thread, and not addressing the question of defending one's home
against whatever. Some of the issues Doug raises in response to my
remark seem to apply more to the latter case than the former.

	If the representatives of the government (police, army, or
whatever) are acting under orders, and you choose to "defend"
yourself against them, at that point, you *are* a revolutionary.
You are effectively deciding that the authority of the government
no longer covers you, and are actively in opposition to it. I
suppose a textbook definition of revolutionary would include that
you wish to overthrow the state, but that's implicit in your
decision that you are outside the authority of the state. Why?
Because others will follow, if you succeed.

	Suppose I come home tomorrow and find that the IRS has
locked my house due to a computer error, and they insist it is
now theirs. I have 2 choices:

	1) I can work to resolve the problem within the system -
	by calling lawyers and IRS offices, etc, etc.
	2) I can declare war on a personal level and fight to
	defend my house by whatever means are available. ;) 

	If I choose #1, all the guns in the world are not going
to help me because I'll be just a well-armed whiner - I'll have
the tools but not the will. If I choose #2, then I'm starting a
small (and most likely *very* unsuccessful) revolution. At that
point, having guns would help, but only if I'm so stupid and lame
brained a tactician and revolutionary that I'd try a frontal
assault on a country the size of the US.

	I assert that case #2 *is* a revolution, if I succeed,
because if I succeed I have broken the underpinnings of our
taxation system. If I got away with it, many others would follow.

>that the tools to do so are available to me.  I do not want to 
>depend on the police for protection; if they are available to lend
>a hand in a given situation, that is great, and I certainly welcome
>the help.

	This is another issue entirely. I was addressing the
NRA-propaganda-inspired shibboleth that we need guns to protect
against potential government oppression.

	You don't need *guns* to do that, you need *balls*

	But I don't expect the NRA to understand a thing like that.

>now both sides are polarized, standing at the far ends of the room 
>throwing rotting fruit and press releases at each other.  Before there
>can be compromise, there needs to be trust.

	I *wish* that individuals in a civilized society don't need
to worry about defending themselves. That's what I pay a portion of
my salary (and a large one!) for our army, coast guard, air force,
judicial system, and police for. If I need to have a gun to defend
my house, they're not doing their jobs very well. Maybe they are,
though, since in 30 years I have never had a cause to use weapons
in defence of my home and family, nor have I had to start a
revolution*.

mjr.

(* and if I *DID* start a revolution you damn betcha I wouldn't be
so stupid as to use guns)