What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army.....?

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:50:22 GMT
by Mike Vanderboegh

[from stanleyscoop]

A friend of mine recently forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed: "If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I'm not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I'm just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)" If I may, I'd like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one that I have given much research and considerable thought to. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives. My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once told me:

"If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied, MV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic."

Note well that phrase: "and the will to use it," for the simply-stated question, "What good can a handgun do against an army?", is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully. It is a military question. It is also a political question. But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves. First, let's answer the military question. Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let's consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol, made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, it's powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier's weapon than an assassin's tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the million during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe. Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked) and so wildly inaccurate it couldn't hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good. The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a perhaps half-hour with your "sister"). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is at, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with "getting out of Dodge," for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor's friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so they can go get their own rifle.

Or maybe you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pickup a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with "Boche" blood, but you don't mind terribly.)

Pretty soon you've got the best armed little maquis unit in your part of France, all from that cheap little pistol and the guts to use it. (One wonders if the current political elite's opposition to so-called "Saturday Night Specials" doesn't come from some adopted racial memory of previous failed tyrants. Even cheap little pistols are a threat to oppressive regimes.)

They called the pistol the "Liberator." Not a bad name, all in all. Now let's consider the strategic aspect of the question, "What good can a handgun do against an army....?" We have seen that even a poor pistol can make a great deal of difference to the military career and postwar plans of one enemy soldier. That's tactical. But consider what a million pistols, or a hundred million pistols (which may approach the actual number of handguns in the U.S. today), can mean to the military planner who seeks to carry out operations against a populace so armed. Mention "Afghanistan" or "Chechnya" to a member of the current Russian military hierarchy and watch them shudder at the bloody memories. Then you begin to get the idea that modern munitions, air superiority and overwhelming, precision-guided violence still are not enough to make victory certain when the targets are not sitting Christmas-present fashion out in the middle of the desert.

I forget the name of the Senator who observed, "You know, a million here and a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about serious money." Consider that there are at least as many firearms--handguns, rifles and shotguns--as there are citizens of the United States. Consider that last year there were more than 14 million Americans who bought licenses to hunt deer in the country. 14 million--that's a number greater than the largest five professional armies in the world combined. Consider also that those deer hunters are not only armed, but they own items of military utility--everything from camouflage clothing to infrared "game finders", Global Positioning System devices and night vision scopes. Consider also that quite a few of these hunters are military veterans. Just as moving around in the woods and stalking game are second nature, military operations are no mystery to them, especially those who were on the receiving end of guerrilla war in Southeast Asia. Indeed, such men, aging though they may be, may be more psychologically prepared for the exigencies of civil war (for this is what we are talking about) than their younger active-duty brother-soldiers whose only military experience involved neatly defined enemies and fronts in the Grand Campaign against Saddam. Not since 1861-1865 has the American military attempted to wage a war athwart its own logistical tail (nor indeed has it ever had to use modern conventional munitions on the Main Streets of its own hometowns and through its' relatives backyards, nor has it tested the obedience of soldiers who took a very different oath with orders to kill their "rebellious" neighbors, but that touches on the political aspect of the question).

But forget the psychological and political for a moment, and consider just the numbers. To paraphrase the Senator, "A million pistols here, a million rifles there, pretty soon you're talking serious firepower." No one, repeat, no one, will conquer America, from within or without, until its citizenry are disarmed. We remain, as a British officer had reason to complain at the start of our Revolution, "a people numerous and armed." The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government's intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So, too, does every tyrant who ever lived. Liberty-loving Americans forget it at their peril. Until they do, American gun owners in the aggregate represent a strategic military fact and an impediment to foreign tyranny. They also represent the greatest political challenge to home-grown would-be tyrants. If the people cannot be forcibly disarmed against their will, then they must be persuaded to give up their arms voluntarily. This is the siren song of "gun control," which is to say "government control of all guns," although few self-respecting gun-grabbers such as Charles Schumer would be quite so bold as to phrase it so honestly.

Joseph Stalin, when informed after World War II that the Pope disapproved of Russian troops occupying Trieste, turned to his advisors and asked, "The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?" Dictators are unmoved by moral suasion. Fortunately, our Founders saw the wisdom of backing the First Amendment up with the Second. The "divisions" of the army of American constitutional liberty get into their cars and drive to work in this country every day to jobs that are hardly military in nature. Most of them are unmindful of the service they provide. Their arms depots may be found in innumerable closets, gunracks and gunsafes. They have no appointed officers, nor will they need any until they are mobilized by events. Such guardians of our liberty perform this service merely by existing. And although they may be an ever-diminishing minority within their own country, as gun ownership is demonized and discouraged by the ruling elites, still they are as yet more than enough to perform their vital task. And if they are unaware of the impediment they present to their would-be rulers, their would-be rulers are painfully aware of these "divisions of liberty", as evidenced by their incessant calls for individual disarmament. They understand moral versus military force just as clearly as Stalin, but they would not be so indelicate as to quote him. The Roman Republic failed because they could not successfully answer the question, "Who Shall Guard the Guards?" The Founders of this Republic answered that question with both the First and Second Amendments. Like Stalin, the Clintonistas could care less what common folk say about them, but the concept of the armed citizenry as guarantors of their own liberties sets their teeth on edge and disturbs their statist sleep. Governments, some great men once avowed, derive their legitimacy from "the consent of the governed." In the country that these men founded, it should not be required to remind anyone that the people do not obtain their natural, God-given liberties by "the consent of the Government." Yet in this century, our once great constitutional republic has been so profaned in the pursuit of power and social engineering by corrupt leaders as to be unrecognizable to the Founders. And in large measure we have ourselves to blame because at each crucial step along the way the usurpers of our liberties have obtained the consent of a majority of the governed to do what they have done, often in the name of "democracy"--a political system rejected by the Founders. Another good friend of mine gave the best description of pure democracy I have ever heard. "Democracy," he concluded, "is three wolves and a sheep sitting down to vote on what to have for dinner." The rights of the sheep in this system are by no means guaranteed.

Now it is true that our present wolf-like, would-be rulers do not as yet seek to eat that sheep and its peaceable wooly cousins (We, the people). They are, however, most desirous that the sheep be shorn of taxes, and if possible and when necessary, be reminded of their rightful place in society as "good citizen sheep" whose safety from the big bad wolves outside their barn doors is only guaranteed by the omni-presence in the barn of the "good wolves" of the government. Indeed, they do not present themselves as wolves at all, but rather these lupines parade around in sheep's clothing, bleating insistently in falsetto about the welfare of the flock and the necessity to surrender liberty and property "for the children", er, ah, I mean "the lambs." In order to ensure future generations of compliant sheep, they are careful to educate the lambs in the way of "political correctness," tutoring them in the totalitarian faiths that "it takes a barnyard to raise a lamb" and "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Every now and then, some tough old independent-minded ram refuses to be shorn and tries to remind the flock that they once decided affairs themselves according to the rule of law of their ancestors, and without the help of their "betters." When that happens, the fangs become apparent and the conspicuously unwilling are shunned, cowed, driven off or (occasionally) killed. But flashing teeth or not, the majority of the flock has learned over time not to resist the Lupine-Mandarin class which herds it. Their Founders, who were fiercely independent rams, would have long ago chased off such usurpers. Any present members of the flock who think like that are denounced as antediluvian or mentally deranged. There are some of these dissidents the lupines would like to punish, but they dare not--for their teeth are every bit as long as their "betters." Indeed, this is the reason the wolves haven't eaten any sheep in generations. To the wolves chagrin, this portion of the flock is armed and they outnumber the wolves by a considerable margin. For now the wolves are content to watch the numbers of these "armed sheep" diminish, as long teeth are no longer fashionable in polite society. (Indeed, they are considered by the literati to be an anachronism best forgotten and such sheep are dismissed by the Mandarins as "Tooth Nuts" or "Right Leg Fanatics".) When the numbers of armed sheep fall below a level that the wolves can feel safe to do so, the eating will begin. The wolves are patient, and proceed by infinitesimal degrees like the slowly-boiling frog. It took them generations to lull the sheep into accepting them as rulers instead of elected representatives. If it takes another generation or two of sheep to complete the process, the wolves can wait. This is our "Animal Farm," without apology to George Orwell.

Even so, the truth is that one man with a pistol CAN defeat an army, given a righteous cause to fight for, enough determination to risk death for that cause, and enough brains, luck and friends to win the struggle. This is true in war but also in politics, and it is not necessary to be a Prussian militarist to see it. The dirty little secret of today's ruling elite as represented by the Clintonistas is that they want people of conscience and principle to be divided in as many ways as possible ("wedge issues" the consultants call them) so that they may be more easily manipulated. No issue of race, religion, class or economics is left unexploited. Lost in the din of jostling special interests are the few voices who point out that if we refuse to be divided from what truly unites us as a people, we cannot be defeated on the large issues of principle, faith, the constitutional republic and the rule of law. More importantly, woe and ridicule will be heaped upon anyone who points out that like the blustering Wizard of Oz, the federal tax and regulation machine is not as omniscient, omnipotent or fearsome as they would have us believe. Like the Wizard, they fan the scary flames higher and shout, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

For the truth is, they are frightened that we will find out how pitifully few they are compared to the mass of the citizenry they seek to frighten into compliance with their tax collections, property seizures and bureaucratic, unconstitutional power-shifting. I strongly recommend everyone see the new animated movie "A Bug's Life". Simple truths may often be found sheltering beneath unlikely overhangs, there protected from the pelting storm of lies that soak us everyday. "A Bug's Life", a childrens' movie of all things, is just such a place.

The plot revolves around an ant hill on an unnamed island, where the ants placate predatory grasshoppers by offering them each year one-half of the food they gather (sounds a lot like the IRS, right?). Driven to desperation by the insatiable tax demands of the large, fearsome grasshoppers, one enterprising ant goes abroad seeking bug mercenaries who will return with him and defend the anthill when the grasshoppers return. (If this sounds a lot like an animated "Magnificent Seven", you're right.) The grasshoppers (who roar about like some biker gang or perhaps the ATF in black helicopters, take your pick) are, at one point in the movie, lounging around in a "bug cantina" down in Mexico, living off the bounty of the land. The harvest seeds they eat are dispensed one at a time from an upturned bar bottle. Two grasshoppers suggest to their leader, a menacing fellow named "Hopper" (whose voice characterization by Kevin Spacey is suitably evil personified), that they should forget about the poor ants on the island. Here, they say, we can live off the fat of the land, why worry about some upstart ants? Hopper turns on them instantly. "Would you like a seed?" he quietly asks one. "Sure," answers the skeptical grasshopper thug. "Would you like one?" Hopper asks the other. "Yeah," says he. Hopper manipulates the spigot on the bar bottle twice, and distributes the seeds to them.

"So, you want to know why we have to go back to the island, do you?" Hopper asks menacingly as the thugs munch on their seeds. "I'll show you why!" he shouts, removing the cap from the bottle entirely with one quick blow. The seeds, no longer restrained by the cap, respond to gravity and rush out all at once, inundating the two grasshoppers and crushing them. Hopper turns to his remaining fellow grasshoppers and shrieks, "That's why!" I'm paraphrasing from memory here, for I've only seen the movie once. But Hopper then explains, "Don't you remember the upstart ant on that island? They outnumber us a hundred to one. How long do you think we'll last if they ever figure that out?"

"If the ants are not frightened of us," Hopper tells them, "our game is finished. We're finished."

Of course it comes as no surprise that in the end the ants figure that out. Would that liberty-loving Americans were as smart as animated ants. Courage to stand against tyranny, fortunately, is not only found on videotape. Courage flowers from the heart, from the twin roots of deeply-held principle and faith in God. There are American heroes living today who have not yet performed the deeds of principled courage that future history books will record. They have not yet had to stand in the gap, to plug it with their own fragile bodies and lives against the evil that portends. Not yet have they been required to pledge "their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor." Yet they will have to. I believe with all my heart the lesson that history teaches: That each and every generation of Americans is given, along with the liberty and opportunity that is their heritage, the duty to defend America against the tyrannies of their day. Our father's fathers fought this same fight. Our mother's mother's mothers fought it as well. From the Revolution through the world wars, from the Cold War through to the Gulf, they fought to secure their liberty in conflicts great and small, within and without.

They stood faithful to the oath that our Founders gave us: To bear true faith and allegiance--not to a man; not to the land; not to a political party, but to an idea. The idea is liberty, as codified in the Constitution of the United States. We swear, as did they, an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And throughout the years they paid in blood and treasure the terrible price of that oath. That was their day. This is ours. The clouds we can see on the horizon may be a simple rain or a vast hurricane, but there is a storm coming. Make no mistake.

Lincoln said that this nation cannot long exist half slave and half free. I say, if I may humbly paraphrase, that this nation cannot long exist one-third slave, one-third uncommitted, and one-third free. The slavery today is of the mind and soul not the body, but it is slavery without a doubt that the Clintons and their toadies are pushing.

It is slavery to worship our nominally-elected representatives as our rulers instead of requiring their trustworthiness as our servants. It is slavery of the mind and soul that demands that God-given rights that our Forefathers secured with their blood and sacrifice be traded for the false security of a nanny-state which will tend to our "legitimate needs" as they are perceived by that government. It is slavery of a more traditional sort that extorts half of our incomes to pay, like slaves of old, for the privilege of serving and supporting our master's regime.

It is slavery to worship humanism as religion and slavery to deny life and liberty to unborn Americans. As people of faith in God, whatever our denomination, we are in bondage to a plantation system that steals our money; seizes our property; denies our ancient liberties; denies even our very history, supplanting it with sanitized and politicized "correctness"; denies our children a real public education; denies them even the mention of God in school; denies, in fact, the very existence of God.

So finally we are faced with, we must return to, the moral component of the question: "What good can a handgun do against an army?" The answer is "Nothing," or "Everything." The outcome depends upon the mind and heart and soul of the man or woman who holds it. One may also ask, "What good can a sling in the hands of a boy do against a marauding giant?" If your cause is just and righteous much can be done, but only if you are willing to risk the consequences of failure and to bear the burdens of eternal vigilance.

A new friend of mine gave me a plaque the other day. Upon it is written these words by Winston Churchill, a man who knew much about fighting tyranny: "Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." The Spartans at Thermopylae knew this. The fighting Jews of Masada knew this, when every man, woman and child died rather than submit to Roman tyranny. The Texans who died at the Alamo knew this. The frozen patriots of Valley Forge knew this. The "expendable men" of Bataan and Corregidor knew this. If there is one lesson of Hitlerism and the Holocaust, it is that free men, if they wish to remain free, must resist would-be tyrants at the first opportunity and at every opportunity. Remember that whether they the come as conquerors or elected officials, the men who secretly wish to be your murderers must first convince you that you must accept them as your masters. Free men and women must not wait until they are "selected", divided and herded into Warsaw Ghettos, there to finally fight desperately, almost without weapons, and die outnumbered. The tyrant must be met at the door when he appears. At your door, or mine, wherever he shows his bloody appetite. He must be met by the pistol which can defeat an army. He must be met at every door, for in truth we outnumber him and his henchmen. It matters not whether they call themselves Communists or Nazis or something else. It matters not what flag they fly, nor what uniform they wear. It matters not what excuses they give for stealing your liberty, your property or your life. "By their works ye shall know them."

The time is late. Those who once has trouble reading the hour on their watches have no trouble seeing by the glare of the fire at Waco. Few of us realized at the time that the Constitution was burning right along with the Davidians. Now we know better.

We have had the advantage of that horrible illumination for more than five years now--five years in which the rule of law and the battered old parchment of our beloved Constitution have been smashed, shredded and besmirched by the Clintonistas. In this process they have been aided and abetted by the cowardly incompetence of the "opposition" Republican leadership, a fact made crystal clear by the Waco hearings. They have forgotten Daniel Webster's warning: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands--what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world." Yet being able to see what has happened has not helped us reverse, or even slow, the process. The sad fact is that we may have to resign ourselves to the prospect of having to maintain our principles and our liberty in the face of becoming a disenfranchised minority within our own country. The middle third of the populace, it seems, will continue to waffle in favor of the enemies of the Constitution until their comfort level with the economy is endangered. They've got theirs, Jack. The Republicans, who we thought could represent our interests and protect the Constitution and the rule of law, have been demonstrated to be political eunuchs. Alan Keyes was dead right when he characterized the last election as one between "the lawless Democrats and the gutless Republicans." The spectacular political failures of our current leaders are unrivaled in our history unless you recall the unprincipled jockeying for position and tragi-comedy of misunderstanding and miscommunication which lead to our first Civil War.

And make no mistake, it is civil war which may be the most horrible corollary of the Law of Unintended Consequences as it applies to the Clintonistas and their destruction of the rule of law. Because such people have no cause for which they are willing to die (all morality being relativistic to them, and all principles compromisable), they cannot fathom the motives or behavior of people who believe that there are some principles worth fighting and dying for. Out of such failures of understanding come wars. Particularly because although such elitists would not risk their own necks in a fight, they have no compunction about ordering others in their pay to fight for them. It is not the deaths of others, but their own deaths, that they fear. As a Christian, I cannot fear my own death, but rather I am commanded by my God to live in such a way as to make my death a homecoming. That this makes me incomprehensible and threatening to those who wish to be my masters is something I can do little about. I would suggest to them that they not poke their godless, tyrannical noses down my alley. As the coiled rattlesnake flag of the Revolution bluntly stated: "Don't Tread on Me!" Or, as our state motto here in Alabama says: "We Dare Defend Our Rights."

But can a handgun defeat an army? Yes. It remains to be seen whether the struggle of our generation against the tyrants of our day in the first decade of the 21st Century will bring a restoration of liberty and the rule of law or a dark and bloody descent into chaos and slavery. If it is to be the former, I will meet you at the new Yorktown. If it is to be the latter, I will meet you at Masada. But I will not be a slave. And I know that whether we succeed or fail, if we should fall along the way, our graves will one day be visited by other free Americans, thanking us that we did not forget that, with help of Almighty God, in the hands of a free man a handgun CAN defeat a tyrant's army.


Add comment Edit post Add post

Comments (43):

your post

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:51:28 GMT

Bravo! well said sai! more truer words have rarely been spoken.
you inspire and embolden us to protect and defend our rights.
please do not let your voice be silenced.

peace be upon you my friend

Edit comment

truely amazing work.

Submitted by cody on Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:40:45 GMT

as to quote the first comment,never before have more true words been spoken.Being a plinker,hunter,and somewhat militant person,i can say that i will spread word of this article to everyone i meet,both gunner and anti gunner,as to convert them to citizens who know the truth and know what is right.continue to write great articles like this,and contue to fight for our freedom!

Edit comment

A bit absurd arguments

Submitted by mark on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 01:44:12 GMT

First off, Pope John Paul is widely credited with facilitating the end of Soviet Communism. And he had no divisions, no army.

Second, when you make the argument that a million people with a million guns might indeed be able to take on the army is actually a changing of the original argument. The original argument was what does one person with a gun do against an army. What you've done is essentially created a new army of the million pistol wielders. And this argument assumes that the other 999,999 pistol owners come to your aid and not the governments aid. And this doesn't even take into consideration Apache helicopters and tactical nuclear weapons.

If right now, today, GW Bush declared himself President for life, and armed pistol wielding groups decided to take him on, you can be sure that a lot of pistol owners would come to the DEFENSE of Bush. I doubt there is a scenario that does not include substantial support for any such President in the general population.

No, the only hope against tyranny in 21st century America is the notion that the American army would not come to such a Presidents aid. Of course, maybe that's why Blackwater has grown so much in the last 7 years.

But I must say, your article is well written and does pull at one's patriotic heartstrings. But then again, patriotism can easily be misused.

Personally, I believe in gun ownership and sane gun control laws that protect the rights of the innocent to own them. But needing them to prevent tyranny in the USA? Forget about that. Those days are long gone and all the tugging at patriotic heartstrings will not change that. "Regular" American's cannot even get close to it's leaders anymore what with secret service and personal bodyguards. The threat of small arms is just a joke to them now.

Edit comment

But needing them to prevent

Submitted by Bob on Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:04:31 GMT

But needing them to prevent tyranny in the USA? Forget about that. Those days are long gone and all the tugging at patriotic heartstrings will not change that. "Regular" American's cannot even get close to it's leaders anymore what with secret service and personal bodyguards. The threat of small arms is just a joke to them now.

You don't need to get close to the "leader": just shoot his (her) lackeys. E.g., the IRS agent, the receptionist at the ATF, the janitor at the DEA, etc. If they cannot get money and no one will work for them, they pretty much don't matter.

Edit comment

Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: A comon sense alternative

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:31:22 GMT

Thank you for a very thought provoking essay.

I would be the last to advocate against armed self defense in the face of armed assailants. Of course, I would prefer a pump shotgun to a pistol any day. History shows that a whole squad of door kickers can be repelled with one. The shotgun was outlawed for use in warfare by the Geneva Conventions because of the horror stories of what happens when a man with a shotgun jumps down into an enemy trench.

But as a political force, armed resistance has very limited applications. Guerrilla warfare, unless very widely supported by the populace and backed by strong foreign assistance, can not eject an army of occupation or overthrow an entrenched tyrannical government. And in these cases, the net result of a nominal victory is "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". Replacing one gang of killers with another, under the watchful eye and steady hand of foreign "friends", is a recipe for more tyranny, not less.

Unarmed resistance, which today is often called "strategic nonviolent conflict", is a proven model that works if the resistance has strong popular support. The Solidarity movement in Poland, the "People Power revolution" in the Philippines, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine are recent historical examples. This method of revolution is not a cure all. Sometimes all it can achieve is to deny a Fascist regime or occupying power the use of productive resources, and stop efforts to indoctrinate the populace to comply with illegitimate authority. But once these goals have been accomplished, the resistance is more than halfway to victory.

Strategic nonviolent conflict aims at uniting as much of the public as possible around simple core values with a broad base of consensus support. The first battle is to take and hold the moral high ground, drawing the endorsement and support of groups including churches, trade unions, pro-democracy political parties, fraternal organizations, etc. These become the communications networks and leadership pools of the resistance. In tandem with public statements, training programs, and rules of engagement that promote the moral authority of the resistance, the enemy's moral bankruptcy is publicized and highlighted through specific tactical programs.

Conditions on the ground determine which methods to use for attacking the public image and personal morale of occupiers and/or collaborators, which include propaganda and recruitment efforts aimed at publicly rehabilitating collaborators who renounce allegiance to the oppressor. Acts of carefully targeted sabotage, publicity stunts, mass demonstrations, occupation and paralysis of the seats of government and finance, etc., all get best results without the use of armed force by the resistance, and as long as the posture of nonviolent force is maintained, every atrocity against the resistance brings waves of recruits on board. What an occupying army's propaganda apparatus calls "civilian human shields", may in fact be committed front line resistance fighters. Never underestimate the power of a grandmother with few years to live, fighting for her family's future way of life.

Armed resistance plays directly into the oppressor's hand, by enabling him to easily cast the resistance in criminal and terrorist roles, and by reinforcing the "us versus them" mentality of the minority who actively support the oppressor's agenda. In genuine a home defense situation, deadly force may be the best option. But in a political struggle to establish rule of law under democratic institutions powered by the affirmative mandate of the electorate, deadly force is rarely appropriate. Mobilizing the people to withdraw consent and cooperation from an occupying power or illegitimate government, presenting no hard targets to the oppressor, simply works better.

An irregular militia may be of great value to an advancing armed force bent on their "liberation", but without foreign backing, an irregular miitia is a losing force that brings more harm than good to the community. Of course, historical counter-examples do exist: The Zapatistas in the Chiapas region, for instance, succeeded because the will of their opponent was weak, and because they were a "well regulated militia" under the command of traditional tribal councils. They successfully defended their human, civil, and constitutional rights - but without overthrowing the Mexican government or attacking political targets with military force. Their success was largely due to international pressure aroused by information warfare on the then-new Internet.

Study of strategic nonviolent conflict corrects the military propaganda lie that Pacifism is weakness. The contrary is true: Pacifism is immensely strong, and rightly feared by the enemies of freedom and popular self determination. The vast majority of committed Pacifists are NOT vegans who believe in Buddhist ahimsa or have "moral objections" to physical self defense, legitimate police work, etc. Pacifists believe in the use of force in every form except politically motivated violence, to secure the fundamental human rights of their communities. Pacifism takes courage, common sense, and a passionate drive to obtain a better future for oneself and one's children: The people of the United States possess these qualities in abundance, but under the enforced ignorance of public education and centrally planned news media, most do not know how to use these qualities to get positive results. This problem can be corrected. A thorough grounding in strategic nonviolent conflict will increase any Nation's resistance to Fascism, and any resistance group's combat effectiveness, by orders of magnitude. This holds true whether or not armed conflict is considered a legitimate tactical option.

A starting point:


Thanks for listening...

Edit comment

The link above

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:15:48 GMT

The link above is to a page at the Albert Einstein Institute about the book On Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: Thinking About the Fundamentals by Robert Helvey. The book is available there on dead trees for $13.50 or as a PDF for free.

Edit comment


Submitted by Simon on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 08:35:32 GMT

I choose not to agree with your point. Armed resistance can lead to more tyranny if the leaders do not have a solid, moral foundation, but armed resistance is what allows us to live in America today. Without arms, America would not exist.

I feel like the founding fathers got it right with the constitution and the government that they created. If there ever was an armed revolution, we would go back to what the country was founded upon and bring things back to the way that they were. It would indeed work.

Unarmed resistance brings upon slaughter, like what happened during WWII. I will not watch helplessly while an oppressor does what he wants with me and my family. It is not the best way. Looking at failed attempts as to why armed resistance did not work in certain circumstances does not discredit it from being the most effective way of change when it does work correctly.

Edit comment

"None are more hopelessly enslaved...

Submitted by Bart on Sat, 03 May 2008 14:30:56 GMT

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."


Fortunately Mark, there are still millions of us who strongly disagree with your defeatist perspective. Don't worry though, we'll continue to carry the torch for you.

"Today we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

--President John F. Kennedy [D-MA]

Edit comment

I disagree with the pacifist approach

Submitted by Bart on Sat, 03 May 2008 14:41:10 GMT

Unfortunately, I believe the ultimate result of the pacific approach would be similar to what the European Jews experienced about 65 years ago.

"The Pope? The Pope? How many divisions does he have?"

Edit comment

Your quote's no good, I

Submitted by perlhaqr on Mon, 05 May 2008 02:16:04 GMT

Your quote's no good, I think Mark realizes just entirely how f'd he is, he just doesn't think that situation is fixable.

And you completely fail to address the really important part of his argument; that while there are millions and millions of gun owners on our side, there are also millions and millions of gun owners on their side. That's what makes it a Civil War, and an ugly one at that.

Edit comment

NVC only works against enemies who care.

Submitted by perlhaqr on Mon, 05 May 2008 02:20:50 GMT

The Romans and the Mongols would have thanked you for politely lining up and sitting down to make it more convenient for them to behead you.

Edit comment

You forgot one thing. Most

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 24 May 2008 10:34:06 GMT

You forgot one thing. Most of Modern body armor can resist handgun to submachine gun rounds. Some of them can even resist rifle fire. Besides, modern military personal moves in vechiles, and move with more than one man. You might beable to drop one of them, but you'll surly be dead after you dropped one. If with luck, they'll probablly bomb the entire square of the block, killing everyone caught in between. What a handgun can to in "modern" situation? not too much.

Edit comment

I stumbled upon this page

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 24 Nov 2008 21:30:44 GMT

I stumbled upon this page quite by accident. Looks like it hasn't been posted to for some time, (pitty). I won't leave an email or name because in this day of electronic snooping, our 'keepers' are everywhere. Still, this post is worth keeping alive. More so, it's worth stoking as you would a banked fire whose coals are still red but fading. More and more I feel the 'call'. Not sure where it comes from of why it's getting stronger but it is. Just not sure what to do about it or where to go. I have my 'tools'. I keep my skills honed. I keep my eye on the ones who would take from us what is rightfully ours. I vote. I promote. I remain vigilante. Maybe that's all there is for now.

Edit comment

A rifle for you

Submitted by YllwFvrPB on Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:45:16 GMT

You say what can we do against an army? Well first off if its our OWN army we have to deal with, I would bet a good bunch of them would either go AWOL, or simply refuse to obey commands. Which the Marines at least claim you are allowed to do if the order is against the law. Secondly remember this; every man or woman who serves later becomes an average citizen again. Many that I know have a rifle to hunt with, or an AR to plink with because its pleasurable or enjoyed it. And are trained fighters. So if a foreign army invades we've got plenty of trained people scattered all over.
I saw a comment that the threat of small arms is a joke. JFK was killed by a ex military sniper was he not? Doesnt the pope ride in a bullet proof car? A good shot can shoot half a mile.

I saw a comment stating that body armor can resist certain types of bullets. Without going into too much detail, if its strong enough to stop a 44 mag then you can see it is being worn, even with clothes. If its can stop rifles then there is no concealment what-so-ever, and they have rather poor coverage. Forget pistols. You need to look up and see how many ARs have been bought recently. Its almost impossible to find a gun store with an AK, AR, or SKS in stock. There are selling fast, plus YouTube machine gun fair. You will see HUNDREDS of people with full out military machine guns and even heavy artillery pieces like Howitzers.
To non violent protest I say, do you remember "Tiananmen square"? 2,600 had officially died, according to the Chinese Red Cross chapter. Well it cant happen here right? Waco Texas. And dont tell me it was a militant camp. Hundreds died and they were pulling out the bones of women and BABIES for days. They used incendiary grenades, which Caught the building on fire killing everyone inside.

Edit comment

That's why you don't shoot

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:09:40 GMT

That's why you don't shoot them in the body armor. Head shots or groin shots are going to end any sort of resistance. And you're treating body armor like it's superman's chest. If someone gets hit with a .45 or smaller rounds it may not penetrate the armor but guess what? They're going to absorb the impact and that will create shock depending on what was used. During this period the attacker can use the shock to his/her advantage. Men that travel in vehicle's have to rest and relieve themselves at some point. They are FAR from invincible as portrayed. Besides if every resistor dropped a single enemy there's still several hundred to one odds in our favor.

Drop the notions of superman and assess the situation realistically.

Edit comment

Ok, to whoever said that

Submitted by Rob on Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:07:44 GMT

Ok, to whoever said that Pope John Paul is largely credited with bringing down the Soviet Union.... I beleive Ronald Regan had a little bit more to do with it. And even if his Holiness did bring down the Soviet Union, it took what, 65 years? Have any idea how many people Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and other leaders had murdered during that time?
Body armor is not invincible, especially not if you have a rifle or shotgun. A .308 will shatter the ceramic plates used in even the best body armor. Even a 7.62 Tokarev pistol will easily penetrate the type of armor police, etc. wear, and such armor provides no protection against rifles, buckshot, or other large weapons.
And to anyone who thinks guerilla warfare doesn't work... How many soldiers have we lost in Iraq? And that little bit of filthy jungle in southeast Asia, Veitnam? The Ruskies had a tough time in Afghanistan, too.
So a civil war would be a really desperate venture, and a lot of people would die. Nobody said they wouldn't.

Edit comment

Thank you

Submitted by Steve T. on Tue, 21 Jul 2009 23:21:40 GMT

Thank you for the words, they are indeed an inspiration. Funny, those that point out we'd be "defenseless" against our military forget that a majority of our military will not point thier weapons at fellow citizens, but would join in our fight for freedom. ...They'd bring thier tanks also you left-wing, anti-US friggin' tofu eating, over-educated, afraid of guns, out of touch pussy's. ...Not that I dislike those who find our current sprinting towards fascism a good thing, you understand. :-)

Edit comment

Abe on this subject

Submitted by Chad Oppenheimer on Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:11:46 GMT

"At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

~Abraham Lincoln, Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois (January 27, 1838)

Edit comment

Exactly the conclusions I

Submitted by Todd Pipkin on Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:19:36 GMT

Exactly the conclusions I came to LONG ago.

When I got to the end and saw that this was written by a fellow Alabamian, I got goose bumps all over!

Edit comment

You had me right up to the point..

Submitted by Endif on Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:57:58 GMT

..where you strayed completely from the actual topic.

I was sad to watch you choose instead to start flogging the tired old nutburger talking points of "teh librulz want 2 tayk ur gunz n abort ur babbies and tax u 2 deth cuz they r hitlurz god an jesus amen".

Some very good points, at first, sadly left abandoned in a thick gravy of bullshit.
Only the most determined (or coprophilic) reader is going to bother.


Edit comment

By Krom! What magic is this?!

Submitted by Endif on Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:07:28 GMT

That's funny. I'm over educated, and tofu is pretty good, done right.
And yet, I don't hate America. How did that happen?

And look at that! There's a well used but clean running firearm on my nightstand, lying on a copy of Audacity of Hope. And yet it does not burst into swastika-shaped flames!

By Krom! What magic is this?!


Could it be that.. no! 'Tis blasphemy to even think it!
.. but could it be that the great prophets Beck and O'Hannity were wrong?

That there is no headlong rush into fascism? That those they tell me over and over daily are my political opponents... aren't baby-eating, gun-grabbing, christian-killing demons?


Edit comment

That's why you don't shoot...

Submitted by John1313 on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:51:35 GMT

Two in the chest,one in the head. I've trained for years to do that from any position...

Edit comment

all wars are won

Submitted by frank on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:04:32 GMT

with small arms...that is a fact.

with one gun I can aquire many, that is a fact.
The worst enemey u can face is a man with nothing left to lose.
he will fight like a wounded bear, make no mistake about it...

and right now the free man is wounded, our self serving leaders best wake up to the fact, that their death of leadership is close at hand.

I speak for the many, and anyone who is not with the free man, is then against us...pick whay side ur on and stick with it.

But history has always picked the free man to win...and we will come out on top again.

see you guys on the hill

Edit comment

"First off, Pope John Paul

Submitted by DonutsCureCancer on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:11:27 GMT

"First off, Pope John Paul is widely credited with facilitating the end of Soviet Communism. And he had no divisions, no army. "

Tell that to the millions of individuals across Eastern Europe (important word there) who risked injury and death when going out on the streets to topple oppressive regimes or prevent recidivist coups, in the face of armed professionals throughout the 1980s. Not to mention in East Germany, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia before that.

The point is not whether it's one person or a million; it's the uncertainty arising from the possibility of a million "one persons" with guns being out there. Even if a significant number of people were to come to the aid of your hypothetical dictator-for-life Bush, you're still talking about a probable civil war as an equally significant number of people would stand against him. The idea is to create the conditions where the risk of such a thing is just too great.

Edit comment

A million here and a

Submitted by AnonymousIllinois on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:25:50 GMT

A million here and a million there, is a quote from Everett Dirksen Senator from Ill.

Edit comment

My Oath

Submitted by OldTrooper on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:56:45 GMT

In 1982 I swore an oath to "defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." Today, with many more years of experince, I re-afirm that oath and to that end "pledge my life, my fortune and sacred honor."

I will stand with my brothers to fulfill that oath. I stand ready and able to do just that.

Come and get some you commies!

Edit comment

this article

Submitted by Thundercowboy on Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:59:46 GMT

Mike V., you have just written the best article on freedom and what it takes to keep freedom that I have read in a long time, including my own writings. It was a fantastic read. You sir are a fine American and a true patriot. Thank you.

Edit comment


Submitted by Citizen K on Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:14:53 GMT

Nice post, I truly appreciate that there are other Americans out there who understand that the world is turning into a much more dangerous place. Inalienable rights are just that, regardless of constitutions, laws, or treaties. Having seen many parts of the globe where there is no tradition of individual rights I'll hang my hat and fortunes on this plot of land any day of the week and twice on Sunday. The point is well made that without the will to protect those freedoms, they will be lost. Most of our fellow citizens have been lulled into a comfortable relationship with a deceiving, self-important, and ever expanding federal government arrogantly pronouncing they know how best we should live... I grow increasingly ill monitoring them.

What successful armed revolutions that freed people from oppression over the past 10 decades would have even started without the example set by the Americans? I wonder if all the successful peaceful protests and movements of recent history would have triumphed without an example like the United States to draw hope, inspiration, and 'will' from. This is a growing fear of mine with respect to the UN and its small arms treaty. If it ever comes to ratification on these shores the only people holding the true reigns of power over us will be criminals... uniformed and otherwise.

Edit comment

That was the best thing I

Submitted by George on Fri, 22 Jan 2010 08:39:45 GMT

That was the best thing I have read in years. It only resonates with me because it is pure truth. I do not believe any force of any evil nature can destroy this country. Yes, we may have gotten to busy to notice but, that has changed. We now see through their pogroms of the past and of the now. When the scales of justice finally tilt, those under the wrong side will feel the full weight. We watch and we wait and when the time is right...

Edit comment

one gun.

Submitted by anon on Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:24:04 GMT

It really only takes one gun in the hand of an angry american to say NO! With that another will see that change can be made and the fight will be engaged. If or when this war begins it will not be civil. I have no place to take prisoners, nor will my family be one. Those of us who have guns will make the afgani fighters look like amateurs. Admiral Yamamoto said japan would never invade the United States. There were to many guns in our civilian hands. "There would be an armed american behind every blade of grass." That is even more true today with the democrats and obuma in charge.

Edit comment

No Thanks

Submitted by Austin on Fri, 22 Jan 2010 14:33:36 GMT

It's sites(articles) like this that give the preparedness movement a bad name. Thanks, now I'm probably on some watchlist for coming here.

Edit comment

You had me until you embarrassed me by making me think . . .

Submitted by OCT on Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:50:52 GMT

"That there might actually be people out there who think differently from my teachers and dear professorae.

Because you do not comply with the politically correct norms of thought I must slander you and all those who who think as you do."

Endif: It was one of your own camp who sang the words "You'd better free your mind instead!" Sage words of wisdom . . . from a liberal! OMG!

Edit comment

As a resident of Germany I

Submitted by germanpatriot on Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:09:48 GMT

As a resident of Germany I feel that freedom in Europe would have long since been extinguished except for the very existance of a free (and privately armed) USA. There are such powerful forces in society here that would like nothing better than to establish a new totalitarian State. Gun control is very strict throughout Europe, with few exceptions. They have taken another big step in that direction with the approval of the profoundly undemocratic EUSSSR as of Dec. 1, 2009.

If the lamp of freedom in the US is ever extinguished, God help us all everywhere in the world...

Edit comment

No Thanks...I'll stick with my fear

Submitted by AndyMan on Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:59:08 GMT

Mr. Austin: Please explain why you are afraid of being on a "watchlist". Think about your answer.

Only a fool prepares for famine, but not drought. You have stored provision against disaster, but don't prepare for the government to come take your liberty away. You are only half-prepared.

See "The Day the Dollar Dies" blovel on johngaltfla.com. I know it's fiction, but you can imagine this happening with very little suspension of disbelief.

Edit comment

No Thanks?.

Submitted by Mr Stevi B on Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:18:24 GMT

Philophically speaking ~ It's one thing to be prepared for an emergency and hope your food and water filters will not run out. It's quite another thing to take back your freedom after it has been incrementally stolen at whatever cost. I guess the big question is how important is it to you? Only the individual can answer for himself. so far I have only read the first few paragraphs of the article above. Alex Jones put it this way to paraphrase "We win, because ultimately we have the higher moral ground" If that be true of you and you fight to win, whether win or lose, truth is truth.

Edit comment

In full agreement

Submitted by 1776jedi on Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:47:50 GMT

What the defeatists fail to understand about the modern mechanized military is that it is dependent upon a logistical system that must deliver food, fuel, and munitions to highly trained people who physically possess and operate the mechanized weapons systems. Pistols and rifles are quite useless against attack helicopters, fighter jets and well armed tanks. They are quite devastating to supply trucks and fuel haulers. Guerrilla fighters have proven, and continue to prove the efficacy of neutralizing powerful weapons systems by attacking their logistical lines of supply with small arms. Without fuel, planes and helicopters don't fly, tanks can't roll. Partisan strikes on supply convoys and depots cause the military juggernaut to spread it's forces thin in an attempt to secure them. By traveling light, and striking targets of opportunity before melting away, the partisan possesses a powerful psychological tool to demoralize their enemy and frustrate it in it's attempts to chase ghosts. Partisans can be the cleaning lady or cook that smuggles an improvised weapon into an impervious air base, and wipes out all the pilots in one act, or the barkeep that serves the tank platoon on leave methanol laced drinks.
The defeatists also deny the reality of the patriotic soldier, who upon being given the order to visit violence on his countrymen, turns the technological terror he operates against his masters instead. During the Yugoslavian Civil War, the military was split along factional lines as well as civil society. All factions ended up in possession of advanced military hardware.

When the defeatists look at an Apache helicopter, they see a deadly and impervious machine that can see in the dark and deliver death on a whim. I see an unarmored flying machine that relies on thousands of moving parts to stay in the air that will fall out of the sky with one well placed shot.

Edit comment

My comments might be off,

Submitted by asd on Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:03:51 GMT

My comments might be off the subject, re: a handgun to defeat an army? To a simpleton, the answer is no. I was not born in this great country, nor have a command of the English language, but plenty of reading helped. I can read between the lines. A hypothetical question has a hypothetical answer, just leave it to that. Thanks to the founding fathers, we have The U.S. Constitution, Americans should treasure this. A lot of its citizen have ignored or wanted to trample this God given rights, but some men will defend it with their lives. There will always be an American who will fight for freedom.

Back to hypotheticals: The USN have 18+ nuclear submarines each one carries enough WMDs; these are manned by red blooded Americans abiding by our Constitution, I am glad they are on our side. Tyrants with his armies should NOT sleep tight.

Edit comment

End the War on Freedom...

Submitted by Kal-Torak on Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:05:10 GMT

"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
~Samuel Adams, 1776 ~

Had the founding fathers taken the defeatist attitude projected by many who have replied here,America would not exsist.

Edit comment

One thing I'd like to see in

Submitted by Making Up A Name on Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:28:36 GMT

One thing I'd like to see in these kinds of writings is a religion-neutral presentation. I'm not asking this particular writer to drop his beliefs, but I don't think that the Christian perspective is necessarily inherent to the argument that we should be a force for our government to fear, and if we're worried about a civil war in our future, expanding this perspective to cover a wider audience is necessary. Save the converting for later.

Signed: An Atheist Gun Nut who respects your right to religion (so long as you're not pushing it on me!)

Edit comment

Not from where I sit. There

Submitted by Nobody on Sun, 13 Jun 2010 15:53:04 GMT

Not from where I sit. There may be many on their side but it's far from the "millions" you think. Most of those that woould support this admin. are afraid of their own shadow.AND while there are self proclaimed liberals in the military, the majority are believers in the flag and consitution both of which are being assaulted.

Edit comment

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn "And

Submitted by American Partriot on Mon, 22 Nov 2010 03:29:05 GMT

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward."
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Edit comment

I agreed with practically

Submitted by JohnF(Boulder Co) on Thu, 06 Jan 2011 03:36:06 GMT

I agreed with practically everything I read until I got to the paragraph about obedience to heirarchical power bloks set up by frightened power-hungry little men, to prey on superstition and ignorance of the masses to make the sheep fall in line. I mean religion.

It is slavery to accept orders to submit to an imaginary friend in the sky and his earthly power-hungry delegates who say they and they alone have the means to salvation and the only truth of all the important questions and the only way to live, marry, have sex with your mate, raise your children, vote, and sign up to kill and die in wars fomented to profit the ruling classes.

"Trust in the lord with all your heart, and turn not to your own understanding" Proverbs 3-5

"Humanism" by definition means that humans are important. Not the state, not anybody's imaginary afterlife. Here & now. Your neighbors as well as your family.

It is slavery for women to accept other's imaginings that every abortion is a late-term elective, a killing of a perfectly healthy ready-to-be-born baby, so that every time any woman has sex, she must accept that the State and powers-that-be require her to bear a child (since no birth control is 100%)

Edit comment

A religion-neutral presentation of rights?

Submitted by TheGoatWhisperer on Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:37:37 GMT

Greetings Mr. Athiest Gun Nut:

Separating the origins of freedom from western Judeo-Christian philosophy is simply not intellectually honest.

If rights were not bestowed upon man from a loving God, then where exactly does man's rights originate? From men? Perhaps by a king, fuhrer, or some other form of ruler's decree? If something is given by man, shouldn't another man be able to take it away?

Inalienable rights: life, liberty, persuit of happiness, are rooted in the tenets of Judeo-Christian culture.

Still respecting one's right to remain ignorant, providing they're not found pedding ignorance as knowledge.

The Goat Whisperer

Edit comment