What really bothers me is what they did in Watertown Mass.
Cordon off streets.
Door to door in full ninja gear.
Armored vehicles with a machinegunner doing overwatch.
The guns that we have are useless in such a situation.
One guy with a deer rifle might take one or two out before being lit up, more likely he'll be lit up before he gets a second shot off.
Anything short of organizing local militias to deal with such a threat is going to come up way short in defending against this sort of thing. We have lots of guns in this country, but unless people band together and use sound tactics together, we are going to get rolled by any organized threat to liberty.
Of course talking about such things on the internetz automatically gets me bumped up a level on the NSA lists.
Which is WHY we need them. IMO they will form in response to a sufficient number of Watertowns, Wacos, Ruby Ridges, etc.
You'll never see a triggering scenario where you or anyone else would switch sides. It will be handled one domestic terrorist, or one neo-nazi group, or one reportedly child porn ring at a time. Most will go down without making the news. The few that shoot back enough to make the news will simply be labeled as terrorists and you'll support the government and praise them for stopping the terrorist threat.
Picked off one at a time, most will simply surrender. When an idiot shoots back they will be squashed with overwhelming militarized police strength. The police will truly believe they're saving the world from really bad guys. The news casters will believe it. And we'll believe it.
Look how many people here today will defend the government's actions at Ruby Ridge, Waco, Miami, or even whatever they are doing wherever they are doing it today.
If you're one of those who catches on to what's happening then you'll simply be the next terrorist.
THe point? There isn't going to be Revolution #2. It's not happening. Ever. If you want to change things, do it at the polls. As discussed in another thread, start with the city council and state legislators. As long as we spend our time here on the Internet instead of printing pamphlets and knocking on the doors of our neighbors, we aren't going to change anything.
I agree that the polls would be a far better place to effect the change we want, and need. But an armed revolt
could work. In a country the size of America that very size would work to the advantage of the revolutionaries. They could hide amongst the populace. There's a lot of open area they could also use to thir benefit.
And really, the fact is there ARE
NOT enough police. If the government really wanted to quash a real revolution they'd
have to bring in the military. Then they'd have to hope the military would be willing to fight for an unconstitutional purpose.
I doubt they would myself, atleast in large numbers. Keep in mind that they WOULD IMO fight for a constitutional,
rightful purpose -- but if they are doing that then it is the revolutionaries who are in the wrong -- and that is directly on our ("We, the People")'s heads.
Such as in Egypt. I don't think anyone likes coups run by the army that force out an elected leader. But Morrisey was an ineffectual lout. And face it the Muslim Brotherhood are NOT choir boys, boy scouts, or in any way remindful of something like George Washington's Continental Army. We ...or atleast I don't sympathize with the Muslim Brotherhood. That doesn't mean I like the army operating a coup and driving an elected leader from office. Sometimes there are NO good guys and no good answers. Or maybe we here just don't have them; I know I have no answers for Egypt's problems, they better fix them themselves, so far as I'm cocnerned.
We'd have to become somthing more than a country of couch potatos and sheep to do something, though, if it does come to that. One thing I will say about the Muslim Brotherhood is that even though their goals are contrary to what I approve of and likely very bad for the mideast as well, they are NOT couch potatoes. They are active. They fight. That's something. They've got the "fire in their bellies."
Do we?
The revolutionaries would have to fight smart, and be wily. This would be easier against the police and difficult to impossible against trained military. Bring in air power and specops and it gets worse for the revolutionaries.
But then everyone likes to point out the NVA in Vietnam also prevailed against a better armed American Army.
They won. We lost.
Not really; we actually won all the major ground battles. We lost politically --- and we did that at home.
The political battle is gonna be a real toughie.
If the revolutionaries are to have a chance then keeping in mind something Machiavelli pointed out in his book
Arte della Guerra, "The Art of War"; "Those who take up war as a profession cannot be other than vicious," would be well advised.
In 1776 we fought and ousted the British by force of arms. Only afterwards did we set out to put together a country, and we got it wrong the first time. The Articles of Confederation didn't work, but the Constitution did work. We have that knowledge to guide us now.
But if we devolve to the point where we are forced to fight for it it must needs to be done with incredible viciousness.
And that brings me back to the earlier point; it is one reason why we need to start at the polls. Politics ain't pretty but it has the advantage of leaving it's participants in a condition to fight on even after a defeat at the polls.
And that's just my two cents.....
