🚀 go-pugleaf

John E.R. Jasen wrote:
> 
> George Worley <gworley@brokersys.com> wrote:
> > on Sun, 26 Jul 1998 19:59:37 -0400, DPH <rally2xs@csi.com> wrote:
> > >THAT is total bullshit.  The armed citizen IS what keeps America free.
> >
> > Do you know how long it would take for the Military to squash a
> > citizen uprising?  Not very long.  DO YOU REMEMBER KENT STATE?
> 
> Can't be done, if the civilian uprising is large enough. I'd really like
> to make this abundantly clear to people, before they go and start setting
> policy on the premiss that the military will keep them safe from the
> 'unwashed masses'.

Definitely. It's also exceptionally important that people recognize that the
majority of Americans aren't inbred yokels agitating in the hinterland. The
majority of Americans are the children of those who _survived winning the
second World War_. We're not stupid. We're not insane. We're amicable
peace-loving people who will quite readily die to protect our own rights, and
kill to defend your rights. And long before we do that, we will have our
peaceful revolution at the ballot box, as we do every few years... and when
that peaceful revolution is ignored by seated powers, those powers will be
unseated, in the same way, though hopefully with lower costs, that we unseated
the Axis powers, and outwaited the fall of the Soviet State.

> 
> Understand two things, before I begin:
> 
> 1) This is for informational purposes only. The soldiers that have to deal
> with this, and anyone planning revolution probably already have thought of
> these things, and DON'T TRY THEM.
> 
> 2) I do not hope, wish for, await joyously, or condone a large scale
> American civil insurrection, as it would probably herald the end of our
> nation. Ballot boxes hurt less when they return fire, than cartridge
> boxes.
> 
> A squad of soldiers, in the field, conducting operations, would probably
> be more than a bit to chew on for civilian revolutionaries.
> 
> That same squad, in an offbase bar, would be cooked meat for one civilian
> revolutionary with a molotav cocktail, or for a few who know how to cook
> up explosives.

You seem to have forgotten the more-underhanded means.

> 
> A platoon of tanks would be a truly unhappy experience to deal with, on
> the field of battle, if all the opposition had were firearms and
> homecooked explosives.
> 
> Tanks don't work as well if the commander, gunner and driver were murdered
> in their sleep the night before, or if the tanks were sabotaged or
> destroyed be infiltrators before they reached the field of battle.

Or parts couldn't be found, because they couldn't be made because nobody could
be made to make them.

> 
> Same with aircraft.
> 
> Try to imagine a scenario, where perhaps every 1000th bullet was
> sabotaged, or one in every 10 MREs had finely ground glass or poison as
> the main course, or where one in every X crucial part was deliberately
> flawed, and would fail upon use.
> 
> Try to imagine a scenario, where soldiers had to be careful about where in
> the cities they go on leave, who they hang out with, and what they do --
> else their bodies will be mailed to the White House, postage due.

With bombs attached, many of which would be biochemical.

> 
> Try to imagine the effort behind just securing supply lines to the
> military bases, once the civilian reactionaries figure out that fuel
> burns, and soldiers don't fight as well without ammunition and food.

Imagine that!

> 
> Try to imagine a situation where, if the military kills just one innocent
> civilian, another gets pushed that much further into the camp of the
> revolutionaries, and another one starts questioning the actions of the
> government and military.

I think it would be a lot more than that. Remember how much agitation was
generated by the simple spreading of the word about Ruby Ridge!

> 
> > >As Chairman Mao said, "Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun."  He was
> > >right.
> >
> > For his way of government he is correct.  The ideals of this nation
> > prevent that.  99.9 percent of the citizens of this great nation feel
> > that we have best way of government.
> 
> As compared to the other examples? Indeed.
> 
> How many think we can make it better? 99.99%
> 
> > Even with the guns we have now, it is no match against the weapons
> > that our military has.
> 
> Please see the above.

Please understand, what you should see above Mr. Worley, is that we see the
above, and teach it to our children... and we teach them well. America remains
free, until America decides otherwise. (Which sadly, we may very well do. Mr.
Lincoln never knew about television.)

> 
> > >And if they decide to cancel the elections?  What are you going to do about it
> > >without the means to resist it (force of arms?)
> >
> > Again misguided.  If the elections were called off and uprising begin,
> > the ones in control of the military would have the upperhand.
> 
> Please see the above.
> 
> > >Look at the Citizens Militias that have sprung up because of these incidents, and
> > >look how the government has taken great pains to not do that again, as evidenced by
> > >the "bend over backwards" treatment of the Freemen standoff.
> >
> > These illegal militias full of malcontents and criminals where set up
> > to destroy our way life not defend it.
> 
> Illegal?
> 
> > First off there isn't a civilian militia that strong.  Our forefathers
> > didn't put the Second Amendment in place for purpose of taken arms (in
> > that era arms meant muskets)   against our own government.  This is
> > treason.  And treason will be dealt with accordingly.
> 
> Hypothetically, is treason against a treasonist government treason?

Obviously not.

> 
> > >No, the FF's meant pistols, rifles, cannons, and all the instruments of war.  The
> > >idea has been changed somewhat to being construed to mean only weapons that can be
> > >carried and fired by one person and which are directed at a specific target.  This
> > >would leave out mines and bombs.
> >
> > Arms to our forefathers mean muskets and single shot pistols.
> 
> Arms to our forefathers meant things that go "boom!" when activated.

Arms to the founding fathers meant "regular military issue". 

> 
> --
> "Frankly, Agent Mulder, alien abduction is the more believable option."
>                         Agent Skinner, X-Files, 3/09/98 [paraphrase]
> -- John E. Jasen  // DNRC Ambassador to Earth \\  jjasen1@umbc.edu --
> -- My views are those of the DNRC only. Prepare to be domesticated --

-- 
Be kind to your neighbors, | "When the going gets weird the weird turn pro."
even though they be        | http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/home.html 
transgenic chimerae.       | Now. Chock full of uninteresting links. 
--------- Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth ----------------
Non-UseNet re-transmission of this news article is a willful violation of US
Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
         Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited. 
The e-mail addresses  for the FCC Commissioners include 
wkennard@fcc.gov sness@fcc.gov hfurchtg@fcc.gov  gtristan@fcc.gov