Remember the Hutaree? They were the militia group entrapped by the feds around the time Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford was shot and VP hopeful Sarah Palin put a reticle over a map charting political targets. Gun control advocates and left leaning political commentators went ballistic. They linked the Huts to Sarah Palin to the Tea Party to all gun owners. Incipient terrorists, all. Or . . . patriots? Millions of American gun owners believe that private firearms protect them (and society) from government tyranny. What’s more, more than a few are down with Tomas Jefferson’s thoughts on the whole “balance of power” thing: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” Seriously? (americancreation.blogspot.com thinks the quote was taken out of context.) Could/would it ever come down to that?

Recommended For You

120 Responses to Question of the Day: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” Really?

      • Why not? Lets see if those service members really want to fight to defend our rights, rather than bombing a goat herder who was minding his own business with a drone. Or if those service members side with the politicians and violently oppress their fellow countrymen as demonstrated by the comments in the Stolen Valor Act thread.

        • So you actually want to get involved in killing your fellow Americans? Because you don’t like the system? One man’s tyrant is another’s patriot.

        • I would insert a important qualifier, my fellow Americans who seek to impede or limit my rights.

        • So flippant a response. I think people daydream and romance the idea of armed revolution without embracing the reality of what it would entail. You have no idea what it takes to fight an asymetric war against the worlds only superpower.

        • A bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan have been doing a good job. A bunch of rice farmers is Vietnam and Korea managed to as well. The government wouldnt have the convenience of indiscriminately bombing anything it wanted to as it has in Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, and else where.

        • matt, what you are advocating here would lead to the utter destruction of the continental US, millions of innocent casualties and dead, a likely dissolution to tribal warfare, a complete shattering of the union itself. The capacity for mass destruction with the push of a button is exponentially greater than it was during the first civil war.

          Go back to your basement and your delusional notion of how cool it would be to get to shoot all the people you perceive as a threat.

        • How would there be millions of innocent casualties? Everyone is guilty of something. I think it would be likely that it would result in more racial warfare than tribal. Shattering the union is the point. You really think that a nukes would be launched in a civil war? Why?

        • And before you bring up “think of the children!” How many of them pledge allegiance to the flag and the United States of America at school? Please show me this person who is pure of sin.

        • Noted that matt includes children as the enemy.

          *backs slowly out of the room

        • Yes I do. Child soldiers have been used thru out history and still are today in Africa. They have also been used as informants, see Pavlik Morozov as a classic example, or DARE training for a more modern example.

        • The best case scenario would be that the United States collapses under its own largesse a la the USSR. Relatively violence free. Each state gets autonomy and we seal off Washington DC and make it a prison colony like “Escape from New York”. Since the criminals are already there, think of the savings on moving costs!

        • Matt,

          If there is some kind of armed conflict in the U.S., you can be assured that both sides will claim they are supporting the Constitution, and both sides will claim God is on their side. People who do evil don’t wear “I am evil” t-shirts.

          Everyone always thinks their rights are being trampled on. Everyone always thinks their individual point-of-view entitles them to take up arms.

          Most people who do evil do not think of themselves as evil. They think they are responding to a greater threat, so they are tricked into choosing sides.

          If someone tells you that you need to kill or torture “to protect your rights”, then you are being deceived.

        • People who do evil don’t wear “I am evil” t-shirts.

          I have a t-shirt that says I ♥ Drugs. They may not wear a t-shirt that says they are evil, but the worst of the lot certainly do wear a uniform.

          If someone tells you that you need to kill or torture “to protect your rights”

          If someone is trying to take your right to life, it isnt ok to kill them? As I said before, my fellow Americans who seek to impede or limit my rights.

        • Matt,

          No. If someone is trying to kill you, then you can defend yourself. If someone is trying to “take away your rights”, you do not have the right to kill them.

          For example, if the City Commission passes a law that says you can’t shoot off fireworks (or guns) in your back yard, you can’t shoot anyone. All you can do is vote against them.

          I don’t care if they are violating your property rights, I don’t care if it is a slippery slope, I don’t care if you feel that fireworks (or guns) in your back yard are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

          They make the laws as they see fit. If you disagree, then you can run against them, or leave. You cannot resort to violence, you cannot secede from the union.

          The Civil War is over. Regardless of how you feel about it, that issue is settled.

          The government has a long history (since then) of dealing with people who think they can kill just because their rights are threatened. (We call these people “terrorists”.)

          We don’t negotiate with these people. They don’t get to go to court to argue the finer points of Constitutional law. Once you take up arms, you have crossed the Rubicon, and the government will no longer be protecting any of your rights.

          In fact, anyone who takes up arms against the government can expect their constitutional rights to be really trampled on pretty badly for the rest of their very short lives.

        • Good luck with your voting plan, take a look at where 200 years of voting has gotten us. All it does is lend credibility to the politicians whos sole purpose is to limit our rights. Voting is consenting to coercion. And just a reminder, but the government doesn’t protect rights, they are there to impede them.

        • You think voting doesn’t change things? Do you remember dozens of Tea Party Republicans getting elected to Congress last year?

          I don’t agree with them, but you certainly have to admit that they have changed the terms of the debate. Because of their influence, Obama has had to cut more federal spending than Bush ever did.

          And that is just a few dozen anti-tax activists in Congress.

          If the next election goes the way it appears to be headed, you can safely assume that taxes are going to be cut again and again. I think it is bad economics, but any way you look at it, it didn’t require anything other than voting.

  1. a real leader. not rush,or alex or newt. someone with experience that can be trusted. former or current military. until we get that it’s just gassbagging.

    • lol, sounds like you want a military dictatorship. the military can’t be trusted, they have through out history sided with the politicians or corporations.

  2. Coming to a FBI watchlist near you: The Truth About Guns website.

    “America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”—Claire Wolfe

      • Yes, 50% of the population still participates in the presidential electoral process (40% dont and 10% are disqualified). Instead of voting for the lesser of two evils this November, abstain from the process, and accelerate the inevitable.

        • I withdrew my consent a long time ago, matt. The trouble comes in convincing others that whole process is a scam.

          No matter who gets elected, government always wins.

        • Matt, I wish you hadn’t mentioned Tannerite. I can see Feinstein/Schumer/Lautenberg’s staffers preparing the legislation to outlaw it ASAP 🙂

    • I agree with Matt’s basic sentiment above but Claire Wolfe’s very pithy observation is profoundly correct. Ultimately the Welfare/Warfare State leviathan is not amenable to reform via the voting booth, however now is not the time to “shoot the bastards”. Things will have to get much worse for that to happen, but mark my words, we will get there someday.

      The comment about the FBI watch list is chillingly plausible. Anyone who opines here should realize that your dossier exists in a secret national security database and is automatically updated regularly by spook software on some mammoth supercomputer run by the FBI, NSA, DIA, CIA, EPIC etc. The Federal Police State is paranoid and likes to keep a watchful eye on dissidents, malcontents, patriots and probably everyone else. Luck and anonymity are the only protections now and not very good ones at that.

      There, I said it, and I didn’t even have to put on a tin foil hat!

  3. I would hope that it would’nt come to that. I would, however, say that people who are in the business of stripping away my liberties are certainly NOT my fellow americans. If we’re ever truly disarmed we are ruined.

  4. You bet. The second amendment exists to protect the right of citizens from tyrrany. If tyrrany can no longer be voted out, it must be thrown out.

    • I tend to agree. However, my conclusion is that citizen ignorance/apathy is responsible for the level of tyranny that we have right now. I will also argue that there is plenty of citizen ignorance and apathy both on the part of civilians and government employees. It’s one thing for ignorant or naive civilians to vote politicians into office that criminalize exercising rights … and it’s another thing when government employees actually arrest/prosecute people exercising said “criminalized” rights.

      Why do law enforcement officers in Illinois arrest people for openly carrying a pistol in a holster in public? It is obviously a right that our U.S. Constitution recognizes and they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution.

      And why do all the citizens of Illinois stand around complaining but doing nothing. I have to wonder what would happen if, oh I don’t know, 200,000 to 300,000 citizens openly carrying pistols in holsters converged on Springfield with the explicit intent of demonstrating peacefully. What is Illinois going to do? Try to arrest 300,000 people? Will the legislature ignore 300,000 people? Will the lamestream media ignore it?

      I think the main problem right now isn’t a tyrannical government — it’s people that would rather watch useless television shows like Jersey Shore than demonstrate … or law enforcement officers that should refuse to follow unlawful orders but follow them anyway.

    • Amen! The founders thought tyranny was something to be avoided at all cost that’s why we have the second amendment. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is a good reference concerning the reason we have it.

  5. I’m going to answer that question with a thought that occurred to me yesterday. SCOTUS has affirmed that Congress may coerce, via threat of fine, American citizens to purchase a product or service from a third party by deeming it a “tax”. Am I the only one who believes that to be an exceedingly dangerous idea?

    • stupid spam filter. apparently the word insuranc e is blacklisted here…

      Is this new? We are required by law to have auto insuranc e. With how complex the tax code is, they practically require you to hire an accountant. With how complex and inaccessible the legal system is, they practically require you to hire an attorney.

      • At the state level. To my knowledge, this is the first time the federal government has been deemed to possess this power.

        • Is there a single state which does not require you to have auto insuranc e? Are we simply arguing semantics?

        • I have no idea what you’re arguing. That last post of yours lacked the usual anti-military vitriol, so I’m having a bit of trouble understanding you.

        • Is there a single state which does not require you to have auto insuranc e? Are we simply arguing semantics? Wait till there is a repeat of the Whiskey Rebellion and the military comes to violently collect your taxes.

          Happy?

          What i’m arguing is that the government requiring you to purchase a product or service is nothing new, re: auto insuranc e. Wether it is done at the state or federal level is of little importance as all states require you to purchase auto insuranc e, and with Medicare being a ponzi scheme, all states would have likely done the same with health insuranc e, it just would have taken a little bit longer.

        • Is there a single state which does not require you to have auto insuranc

          Yes. Most of them. Other forms of “financial responsibility” are permitted, such as a bond.

        • No state “requires” that you have auto insurance. You only have to have auto insurance if you drive on public roads. I know a lot of people (mostly in Chicago and New York City) who don’t drive and therefore don’t have auto insurance.
          ObamaCare does require that everyone who is breathing have health insurance. The SCOTUS decision attempted to change the requirement to a tax. I, personally, don’t know where that’s going.

        • From what i’ve just read, you have to purchase that bond from a insurance company, essentially the same thing as being forced to buy insurance albeit cheaper.

      • I do my own taxes (it’s not THAT hard, come on).
        I stay out of trouble with the law (again, not that hard if you avoid stupid people doing stupid things in stupid places).

        • Wait till you get audited. The IRS even admits they dont fully understand the tax code. If they dont understand it then how can it be “not that hard”?

          Wait till your involved in a DGU, incorrectly identified by the police, identified by corrupt police, have a family member die and have to put their estate thru probate, get sued by a private party, sue another party that has defrauded you, etc.

        • As the police state grows, soon the only way to “stay out of trouble with the law” is to be a good, submissive slave. Or, at least, to act like one.

          I’m not sure I can pull that off.

      • The auto insurance argument is a silly one. Driving is a state-level privilege and auto insurance is a requirement of exercising that privilege. If you don’t want to buy auto insurance, you can simply choose to not drive a car. You can opt out. Same goes for road tolls, fuel taxes, and such like. Practically, it may be extremely difficult in many locations and for many people, but ultimately it is a plausible option.

        Furthermore, though not particularly relevant, in some states you can opt to post a bond in lieu of purchasing insurance.

        This is different. The only method of opting out of this “tax” is to die or renounce one’s citizenship.

      • matt, in most states you can post bond instead of buying from Allstate. And since there’s no right to keep and bear cars, the state can call driving a privilege and make it stick.

        • Thank you Ralph. You still have to purchase that bond from a company, essentially the same thing, compulsory procurement of services. Unless you have 30k – 60k of cash laying around, and trust a essentially bankrupt state to hold on to.

          I believe there is a right to keep and bear cars, just because it is not enumerated in the Bill of Rights doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Although i’m sure the state would disagree with me on that point. I’ve always wondered how they acknowledged we had a right to travel/freedom of movement or whatever, but not a right to cars.

          Dieing is also a privilege in the states eyes, which only they or mother nature may grant. Look at what happened to Jack Kevorkian.

      • We are only required by law to purchase car insurance if you wish to drive a car on public roads. I’ve also heard that in Maryland, if you are willing to put $50,000 in an escrow account in order to cover an damages caused, no insurance is required. I cannot find any documentation to back up the Maryland claim.

    • Taxes have always been a type of “coercion” thus, this is why we have “sin” taxes to supposedly limit smoking, alcohol etc. What SCOTUS said, was that Congress has basically an unlimited ability to tax. They also said, how just or unjust the tax, that is up to the people who can vote the bums out if they disagree — much like any tax we don’t like.

      SCOTUS also made very clear the lmits of interstate commerce and other limits. But, constitutionally, they can tax whatever they want and if the people do not like the tax, it is their duty to vote the bums out and replace or repeal the tax.

      SCOTUS made it clear, it was not up to them to decide what was a good or bad tax. The ruling was purely that Congress can tax anything which is right that was already under their power.

      Don’t like the tax? Vote your local, state and federal representative out come November that is a right that is under our power if people actually bothered to vote.

      • Yes, “vote them out.” That’s exactly what they want you to believe… that you can make a difference. That you actually have a voice and can effect change.

        Government draws its legitimacy from those who participate. Withdraw your consent and starve it into oblivion.

    • Actually this is very dangerous territory. It has set a precedent which has not been seen in American history. For the first time, based on the majority response the congress now can levy taxes on actions. Not buying health insurance was compared to buying gas, or some other activities. In theory now you could be made to pay a penalty if you didn’t eat broccoli, or didn’t walk 30 minutes a day, or didn’t take your car in for service every 3000 miles. It also is precedent setting in that it treats the mandate as a tax and a mandate at the same time. These things are treated as exclusive and different, but apparently not now. That is huge….

      • Don’t forget that health care in the united States was already socialized. Ronald Reagan signed the bill that forces hospital ememrgency rooms to treat anyone who shows up. All Obama addid is a provision that forces people to pay for it.

        So your analogy to car maintenance is a good one. If certain auto mechanics were required to fix every car towed in to the lot, you can bet that no one would ever get routine maintenance until the car needed towing.

        All this bill does is tax people who are freeloading off the system.

        In addition, there are plenty of other good provisions in the bill that people would be willing to fight for, if the political climate had not already been reduced to name-calling.

        So now, a huge portion of people in America are being told to vote for candidates who are going to cut off your health insurance. And if those candidates don’t win, we are being told that we should be willing to take up arms to deny ourselves health insurance.

        No wonder people in Sweden consider us insane. We are actually talking about starting a revolution so we can get less health care, lower quality health care, pay more for it, and work longer hours to make less money.

  6. I pray for the best, but prepare for the worst. At this point, I honestly think that a full restoration of true individual liberty is highly unlikely without bloodshed. I certainly hope it doesn’t come to that, but the authoritarians have demonstrated time and time again that they are not willing to just leave me the fvck alone!

  7. One more reason I dislike Jefferson.

    I am more in line with George Washington who set the precedence of peaceful transition of power.

      • “I fully agree in peace but unfortunately peaceful transitions rarely happen ever…”

        It’s been working here quite well for the last couple of hundred of years or so.

        Sir, it really bothers me when folk talk of armed resurrection.
        First reason is such talk is BS and unproductive.

        To me it smacks of junvinille wet bed dreaming.

  8. I think the key idea behind that quote is that governments *always* seek more power, until they become intolerable and the people rise up to change them (or, equivalently, they become so unstable they are overcome from outside). It was clearly the intention of the founding fathers that Americans must retain the right to bear arms personally, in the hope that they might have the means to resist (and possibly overthrow) their government when (not if) it became tyrannical. Self-defense, hunting, BAH! Those are secondary benefits of the Second Amendment. Its primary benefit and raison d’etre is to defend us from our government in the last extreme. Long live liberty!

    • +1

      Asking “do you want a second revolution or not?” is a stupid, simplistic, entrapment of a question. Any true, sound-minded American knows exactly what what quote means, and Paul nailed it. There’s a major difference between wanting a war and recognizing the encroaching inevitability of reminding those who would be kings that we live in a Constitutional republic.

  9. “Could/would it ever come down to that?”
    I sincerely hope not, but I could invision it happening, and it will be a bloody horrible mess. The American people meekly stood silent when government agents burned down a commune in Waco. They have stood silent at the now common “stop and search” of New Yorkers, the multiple tragedies of “no-knock” warrent enterings of wrong houses, all the bullcrap we now endure at airports, but eventually there will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Our first revolution was slow in coming, it took a long time of enduring bad policy of British rule before folks said, “That’s it! I’ve stands all I can stands, ’til I can’t stands no more!” or something like that.

    • I agree with you and Paul, Joe. The 2nd Amendment is about defending ourselves against tyrannical government. When that becomes necessary it will be terrible and the United States will probably be invaded by an outside, opportunistic power in the midst of any significant civil war. The world has become too small. Technology has compressed both distance and time. Look at any civil war of the last fifty or so years. Outside forces invariably get involved. The richer the prize the faster outside countries jump.
      As to when Americans will say no more; many people I know say the tripwire will be the guns themselves. Something like, “When they come for the guns…”
      And when that happens, it’s good to know we got Popeye on our side, Joe.

  10. 1984 by George Orwell!!!!
    Part of the oath inducting you into the Military is that ” You will defend the United States from All Enemies both Foreign and Domestic!!!!!!
    That could go either way depending what the CIC tells the Military Commanders to view as the enemy!!!!!!

    • If you look at history, the domestic enemies have always been civilians, never politicians or corporations. From Kent State in 1970 to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791.

  11. I hope it never comes to that, bc I am fairly certain that I would be on the losing end of a drone attack. My measly stash of guns won’t hold up against a tank/hellfire missile/pack of rabid dogs

  12. Well let me follow up on Robert’s post.
    The sentence referenced above was I believe in a letter to William Smith in 1778. the discussion revolved around the Shay’s Rebellion. Here is not the whole thing but a better chunk:

    Wonderful is the effect of impudent & persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.

    In this instance the Shay’s Rebellion was an armed conflict. And in fact he does speak of taking up arms. In fact his comparison to armed rebellions is pretty apropos if you think about it. We have witnessed the Arab spring. There have been other armed revolutions around as well. Does this mean we need to form state militias and go to civil war? I would pray and hope that through using our vote and working with diligence to bring to light the wrongs of the administration we can drive positive change with nare a single drop of blood shed. The reference to ill informed public references to the lies and single sided point of view pressed by the British. Reagen once said “trust but verify”.

    Tyranny might have started with the British but was surely carried over into the American government. Jefferson and the founding fathers knew this. They also knew that Constitution can not be challenged. If it is, and we see this happening now, both the states and federal governments oppress us. Taxes for not having health care, taxes on cigarettes or alcohol. My inability to get a 32 oz soda at the movies. The fact that many states charge $500 plus just to try and apply for a CCW, when it should be given for no or little charge. These are just a couple of examples. But it is for the best says many. These rules, or laws will erode away at our freedoms and liberties for our own good until there isn’t anything left. I smoke and drink and it is my choice, sure it isn’t healthy, but again it is my choice.

    So if tyranny has taken root and the normal democratic process has failed, and there is no other means to restore freedom to the republic then taking up arms in the literal sense is warranted.

    I will leave you with this quote:
    “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

  13. I think it will happen, but not in the way everyone thinks. The enemy is not our elected politicians (who are worthless no matter which party they belong to). The enemy is the Federal bureaucracy, which keeps growing and passing “rules” that are enforced like laws. As the monster grows it sucks up more and more of our country’s financial resources. Eventually it will lead to a financial collapse. There will then be fighting in the streets for food and heating fuel (wood/coal). The Feds will send in the army to try to quell the fighting, but hungry people will not be deterred. I foresee a dark and bloody future.

      • More basically, the majority of voters are the enemy (of liberty, truth, limited government etc.) It is they who choose the politicians who choose the bureaucrats who choose the civil servants.

  14. It’s the duty of revolutionaries first to get themselves in order. How often do the American people look at some violation of rights and just sigh and move on? How often do we accept mediocre or corrupt politicians as merely the way things are? How often do we vote for one of the two major parties because they’re going to win anyway? As a society, we need to answer for our own inaction in the established means of expressing our power before we talk about armed resistence.

  15. I don’t believe people will rise up except a select minority of people. the populace is ignorant, they’re sheep nobody cares enough anymore. Its all “new tech, new show, new clothes!!!!omg omg omg lol!!!” the rising generation won’t do anything, they will stand idly by as the gov takes their rights away.

    • The leaders declare a state of emergency(for whatever reason) and enact emergency powers legislation. They take all of our rights away from us. Take over the radio and TV stations and attempt to collect all firearms (the teeth of the Constitution). Do you organize and fight then? Start organizing now and prep. The current ilk are followers of Saul Alinsky so they are in it for the long run and would rather errode our rights. If the political climate changes too much they might try and go for the totalarian gusto. Stay tuned!

    • The people won’t rise until government intrusion is violent and invasive in the majority of American lives. For the most part Americans can go about their life’s and not have to deal with government. when you have to dealwith a government agent daily then we need to test this.

      • the super sad part of it is i am only 17 and only some of my friends and I are the only ones politically aware of what is really happening in DC. Everyone else my age has no idea or doesn’t care. Most of them will either be slaves to government welfare, or go to some liberal college and get turned into political lackeys!

  16. Armed insurrection in America never ends well for the insurgents. Go ahead and water the tree of liberty, but its your blood that will do the refreshing.

    • Ladies & gentleman, I believe we’ve found ourselves a tool.

      I hope you enjoy (what’s left of) the freedoms brought to you by American “insurgents”.

      • I beilive you have never studied insurection, asymmetric warfare, or American history. Compare John Brown to John Wilkes Booth, or the Whiskey Rebellion to Shay’s Rebellion. It did not end well for these men. Find me examples of successful rebellions against the US where the leaders survived, or the rebellion didn’t end in shambles. You sir are a tool with no concept of what you are arguing about.

    • The reason it never went well is because the insurgents tried to hold ground or acted in a organized fashion that made it easy for the government to bring in overwhelming force for a proper battle/slaughter. Lone wolfs or small groups eliminating the lone police officers on patrol, other government employees to and from work, and their supporters would be far more effective.

      • You are actually arguing for guerilla warfare against the U.S. Government? I can think of three reasons why it won’t work.

        First is “hearts and minds”. Once you start using the tactics of terrorism, people will turn against you, and you will lose your support.

        Second is strategy. Most targets are not going to inflict any damage on your “enemy”. In order to obtain a high value target, you have to become a high value target. (Witness Al Qaeda, which goes through several “number two” men per year.)

        Third is moral. What you are proposing is against the laws of God and man. It is evil. And every responsible American will oppose you with their lives.

        You will get a few people who align themselves against the government out of habit: The Klan, Al Qaeda, The Aryan Brotherhood.

        Look around; If these are the “patriots” you have surrounded yourself with, then I hardly think you can compare yourself to the Founding Fathers.

        More likely, you have made yourself guilty by association. This is not a good strategy for promoting liberty.

        • Guerilla warfare does not necessarily equal terrorist tactics. Although that is a now common misconception based on the U.S. propaganda regarding our current foreign conquests. I recommend the book “Guerilla Days in Ireland: A Personal Account of the Anglo-Irish War” by Tom Barry. It is a fantastic accounting of successful asymmetric warfare against a superior force conducted by moral men… Irish Catholics.

        • You dont have to win their hearts and minds. I’m not asking for them to consent to me governing them.

          You dont need high value targets, as you said, the head will simply be regrown. Eliminate the rank and file en masse, and go after the infrastructure which supports the government.

          How is what I am advocating against the laws of god and man anymore than what the government all ready does?

          40% of the population doesnt participate in the presidential electoral process (and 10% is disqualified), even more don’t participate in the other electoral processes, here in Chicago, 75% dont participate in city elections. That is alot more than the Klan (does it still exist?) or the Aryan Brotherhood.

          I’m not a patriot, i’m an anarchist.

          Who am I guilty of associating with?

        • Matt eliminating the Rank and file en masse doesn’t always work, not to mention it takes far more resources than any revolution group is capable of. Your spouting off popular insurgent tactics like you understand them. Your lone wolf man on man scenario used by the IRA didn’t work and your latest mass murder plot didn’t work for the US against Vietnam. Anarchy is a cute notion for 18 year old punks (as in SLC Punks) with spiky hair, but for 300 million people it wont work, just like your tactics. You don’t like the military, but you can’t fight a professional army with half baked tactics and a stockpile of surplus ammo. It takes millions if not billions of dollars, lots of training and manpower and it helps to have an understanding of military theory. You can’t affect a center of gravity shift by shooting mailmen and government secretaries.

        • Your lone wolf man on man scenario used by the IRA didn’t work

          The number of privately owned firearms and ammo in Ireland was nothing compared to what is in the US. This policy does seem to be working for the Mexican cartels.

          You don’t like the military, but you can’t fight a professional army with half baked tactics and a stockpile of surplus ammo.

          What happened in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, etc?

          You can’t affect a center of gravity shift by shooting mailmen and government secretaries.

          I would disagree. Start with the IRS, Federal Reserve and Department of Treasury. What happens when the government has problems paying their employees?

        • Matt,

          You are talking about shooting tax collectors and accountants, and you don’t see how this is against the laws of God?

          I am not one of those people who put a statue of the 10 Commandments in my living room, but I am pretty sure the part about “Thou shalt not murder” has not been overturned.

          I guess that is one of the “liberal” Commandments, but I am not aware of any fine print that makes an exception in the case of tax collectors. (Incidentally, the KJV says “kill”, but there are plenty of places where God commands people to kill. The original word is “retzach” or something like that, and it has a more obvious meaning. Moses didn’t use your name specifically, but it hit pretty close to what you are describing.)

          As far as the laws of man are concerned, if you are willing to resort to cold-blooded murder to get your point across, then I am pretty sure that makes you a bigger threat than the paper-pushers at the local Zoning Board who won’t let you build a bomb shelter right on your property line.

          More to the point, if you don’t think government employees have the right to life, then what rights of theirs are you protecting? Or is this only an exercise in protecting 2nd Amendment rights?

          And if this is all about the 2A, remember that the government is not coming to take your guns away. I don’t care who told you that, they lied. The federal government has a long list of priorities, and your gun collection is not even on the list.

          The Hutaree were mentioned in the original article, but remember that once the terrorism case was dismissed, the gun charges were considered to be pretty run-of-the-mill stuff. Not anything the Federal Justice Department would waste much time on.

          So what about your other rights? Like your right to refuse health insurance? Is that something you even cared about before the insurance companies started paying people to get upset?

          Your right to go through life without health insurance might exist, but is actually a less important constitutional consideration than someone else’s right not to be murdered. (At least that is what the SCOTUS just ruled. I am guessing that if you had thrown in the part about murdering everyone who disagrees, you would have gotten even better than a 5-4 decision.)

          Now I realize that you are just trolling the argument to see where it will lead, but really, this has gone on long enough.

          There are people out there who hear this kind of talk all the time, and after a while it seeps into their little minds and takes root. You might be joking, but they aren’t. There are little Nazis-in-training lurking on the internet, and they think of violence as a good solution to every problem.

          When they are intellectually outgunned, they don’t know it. And when they are physically outgunned, they think of themselves as waging a glorious losing battle for freedom.

          Note that this does not allpy to the Hutaree.

          The reason the charges were dropped against the seven Hutaree members is that there was zero evidence they intended to murder anyone. If they had gotten all fired up on Thomas Jefferson’s “blood of patriots” prose, and actually gone out killing people, they would not have had the opportunity to prove anything in court.

          Their lives would have become monuments to hatred and stupidity, and when they were gone, we would not exactly be putting flags on their graves.

          So if you are worried about the rights of the Hutaree, remember that they went back to their compounds, or their jobs, or whatever, and their rights were actually upheld.

          By a liberal judge who was appointed by Bill Clinton.

        • I wrote a long response to this, and it seems to have disappeared on the internet.

          Here is the short version:

          1. The laws of God have not been overturned. “Thou shalt not murder” does not contain any fine print that excuses your point of view. In my original post I even used the Hebrew verb to display my fancy understanding of Exodus.

          2. Remember that the Hutaree were acquitted of terrorism charges (by a liberal judge). No one is turning America into a dictatorship to take your guns away. It is not happening now and it will never happen. The judge separated the gun charges from the terrorism charge because the gun charges were insignificant.

          3. Your right not to buy health insurance is a silly right that you didn’t care about until insurance companies started telling you it mattered. Fox News is just trying to get you fired up so you will vote people out of office who want to raise taxes on billionaires.

          4. You don’t protect people’s rights by killing IRS Agents. The fact that you even suggest it means that you are just trolling the argument to see where it leads.

          5. Don’t use the language of violence to troll discussions of freedom. There are people out there who do not understand what Jefferson was saying, and they do not understand that you are joking, and they will get all riled up and go do something stupid.

          Henry: If the IRA is your example of a moral war waged by moral men, then why the killing of children?

  17. The path (back) to freedom is not alway peaceful. I’ve been shocked at the transformation that America has undergone in my relatively short lifetime alone. Many of the things we did for fun (or part of normal life) as children are now criminal. Mountains of laws are imposed under the guise of safety, environmental concern, somebody’s hurt feelings. Unfortunately, police CANNOT, in general, be trusted. I have personally witnessed extreme abuse of citizens, for NO reason, only to have the incident covered up by the system. The government CANNOT be trusted. Elected officials constantly lie, accept various forms of bribes, and needlessly expand the code of law to the point where almost everyone is guilty of multiple charges. Who are citizens to trust other than themselves and their local communities? But dont ask that question, else you might be considered a militia and an enemy of society.

    I pray for and advocate for peaceful restoration of freedoms and containment of the gov’t behemoth, but the national pressure cooker is approacing a boil (I believe intentionally). As much as I hope this train will turn around, I have little faith that will happen ’til the wheels come off the tracks.

    When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free. Pray for peace, prepare for war. … and all that jazz …

    • “When freedom is outlawed, only outlaws will be free. ” You have no idea how historically correct this statement is! (Maybe you do, but most people don’t.)

      Pirates were the only Free people in the 1500’s and early 1600’s. The captain was elected by the crew, and every major decision was also voted on by the crew. Profits (bounties from their attacks on other ships and ports) were also divided equally among all the crew members. This democratic form of government existed nowhere else except aboard pirate ships.

      Some will say this isn’t true, but they are talking about Privateers which were controlled by Britain or Spain. I’m talking about the Pirates who were under no Nation’s control.

  18. T’aint a tree left to water. Just what you can eke out of a zero-sum game as an isolated individual.

    Join a tribe. Tribalism or Brazil 2.0 are your choices. Hipster libertarians and old men don’t fight wars. Classical liberalism has no army. So go build a community…be it biker, Catholic, defense league, or whatever.

  19. sadly it looks like it’s on the way whether we want it or not. we are as divided as we were in 1775 or 1859. and grow more so every day. nobody planned ro start th first one , they just wanted to leave england peacefully . then the boston massacre happened and things went down hill from there. something like a zimmerman or the financial failure of a large city or state and things could get out of hand to a point it woulsd be hard to walk back from.

  20. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.” americancreation.blogspot.com thinks the quote was taken out of context.

    Yeah, sure. Jefferson was taking about botany.

  21. Wow that’s a lot of comments! At the risk of repeating one of them – duh, the founders thought so, that’s why we have the 2nd amendment to begin with!

  22. I hope not. The best way to affect change is through the ballot box.

    Consider our population today vs. the time of the Revolutionary War. Some quick Google-fu shows that we have a population of 311,000,000. During the Revolutionary War it was around 2.5 million.

    I think this is important given the sheer number of people who would suffer in the event of an actual second revolution. The disruption to our system of commerce would be catastrophic, resulting in massive secondary casualties through riots and the general breakdown of society. I don’t think there would be a way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again when it was all said and done.

    I think the idea of a second American Revolution via arms is not viable, and would be far more destructive than some realize. Our republic, for all its flaws, should be sculpted through the political process, not armed conflict.

    • The political process was designed to benefit the government, not the people. As long as people continue to have faith in the political system, the government will continue to grow more powerful and intrusive. This truth is obvious simply by observing the trend of our government from inception until now. Never, in over 200 years, has the Constitution nor the political electoral system ever restrained the growth or overreach of government.

    • There would be no way to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, that is the point. If Humpty Dumpty were put back together, we would be in the same place we are today.

      And of course there would be a large number of people who would suffer, that again is part of the point, there are 4.4 million federal employees, and another 45 million on food stamps.

      The general breakdown of society and resulting riots would be an important part of the tactics which would need to be employed, as it would cause the government to not only focus on the insurgents, and it would further delegitimize the government in the eyes of many.

  23. Jefferson was an anarchist at heart, as am I, but he still thought that if we must have government that it should be as unintrusive and limited as much as possible.

    Government, after all, is force. And it is immoral to use force against free people who aren’t infringing on others’ rights. So let’s try to limit the amount of force we use as much as possible.

    Of course the guy was a hypocrite and contradictory when it came to slavery but he had many worthwhile things to say. As did Thomas Paine.

    • “That government is best which governs least.” – Thomas Paine

      At best, government is a necessary evil but most commonly is a cancer. It may go into periods of remission but always be ready, willing, and able to apply chemo.

  24. And Thomas Paine did not suffer from such hypocrisy, by the way.

    Also, Jefferson did not believe that one generation’s laws should bind the next generation.

    “Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.”

    http://student-of-life.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/21/5502595-thomas-jefferson-supported-rewriting-the-constitution-every-19-years-equated-not-doing-so-to-being-enslaved-to-the-prior-generation-what-do-you-think-about-that

    It’s a truly radical idea but one worth discussing and thinking about.

  25. Now is not the time for armed revolt. It is true that the problems that we face cannot be solved by using the ballot. Yes, there is no way to vote ourselves out of this mess due to the self serving interests of the 2 political parties.

    The only fix to the problems that we face can come from state’s reasserting their rights. If that means that a state would have to secede in order to regain sovereignty, then so be it. I personally don’t believe that the federal government would use troops in an attempt to force any state back into the union, but were that to happen, then we’d have another civil war of state militia against the US Army. It would not be running around indiscriminately shooting people as mentioned earlier.

      • Between 1869 and 1865? Was that when Jef Davis and Abe Lincoln were fencing in the time-machine going backwards?

        If you’re referring to the civil war then yes, we remember. Before that tragedy folks could go a lifetime without encountering the federal government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *