On 08/29/2018 03:38 PM, Razer wrote:

> I wasn't really suggesting using guns to overthow the government. You
> might like this explanation of why.
>
> Randazza at the libertarian legalwonkblog popehat:

[...]

> We managed to preserve our right to keep military grade rifles and
> machine guns, so we all muster down on the Town Common with our guns. We
> tried voting. We tried protesting. This is a reasonable time to start
> with the armed insurrection stuff.
>
> So, you, me, all our neighbors, hell our entire city builds a perimeter
> around it. We fill sandbags, we all have ammunition, we all have food,
> water, supplies, and most importantly, we are all unified and in
> complete solidarity.
>
> And we stand there, resisting whatever it is the government was going to
> do to us.
>
> And then they fly over with one jet, dropping one FAE bomb, and roll in
> with three tanks, and in about 12 hours, our "resistance" is reduced to
> a few smoking holes. The Tree of Liberty will get its manure all right,
> but it will be the manure that you shat out as you ran for cover, as
> long range artillery rains down on our town, as we get carpet bombed
> from 35,000 feet, and as the sky goes black with drones and cruise missiles.
>
> We're screwed.

As a critique of Right Wing militia fantasies, the above stands up well.

But as a statement about armed insurrection in general, it presents a
straw man argument:  Nobody will stage an armed insurrection against a
21st century government by using 18th century colonial strategy and
tactics; anyone who tries it will certainly lose, early and badly.

The strategic objectives of modern insurrections rarely include
replacing the whole government, and winning tactical options rarely
include defeating the national armed forces in head to head conflict;
that requires mass defection and non-compliance by the opposing force.

Instead, an insurrection seeks "redress of grievances" i.e. radical
changes in State policy and procedures.  Bringing commerce to a halt via
boycotts, civil disobedience, sabotage, etc. reliably produces maximum
results at minimum risk.  "Economic terrorism" ranks at or near first
place in formal assessments of threats to State and Corporate power today.

The State exists to provide a stable environment for commerce and to
enforce the rights, so called, of absentee landlords.  It has no other
purpose.  When the State fails in these missions and can not restore
business as usual by force, the State's owner/operators come to the
bargaining table prepared to make concessions.  In the United States,
the Labor Movement and Civil Rights Movement achieved significant
objectives working within this model of domestic political warfare.

Competent insurrectionists do not kill people except in self defense;
murdering one's opponents only makes it difficult or impossible for the
survivors to come to the bargaining table mentioned above.  "Off The
Pig" was a heavily promoted slogan in the 60s and 70s when the FBI was
running "Communist" revolutionary cells in the United States - guess who
promoted it, and why?

Our rulers and their faithful servants make every reasonable effort to
provide the public with pre-failed models of rebellion, and to deny the
public access to information about practical populist politics.  "Rebel
As You Are Told" ranks second behind "Divide The Conquered" among the
most necessary, persistent and well funded themes in State and Corporate
propaganda today.  Anyone who wants to see input from public at large
have any impact of State policy and Corporate behavior faces a long
uphill climb.  Any chance of success must start with basic political
education.  An example of such:

http://pilobilus.net/strategic_conflict_docs_intro.html

:o)