Previous Post
Next Post

TTAG reader JJ watched Alex Jones’ pantomime performance on Piers Morgan’s chat show last night. The blogger was not amused. He wrote this cautionary response, republished here with his permission.

Khrushchev said that the sure destruction of America would happen from within and that they will take down the country without firing a shot. Stalin himself pointed out that violent revolution often preceded the establishment of a socialist order, which in turn, would become communism. Given these two notions, one is safe in concluding that any current revolution within America will not involve foreign powers, but will come about by a form of an internal, social breakdown. This, one may reason, is also by design. In regards to starting a revolution, my argument (and plea) is for cooler heads to prevail . . .

Many people out there are clutching their guns and talking about starting a revolution.  So it is of no surprise to me that the public is being intentionally agitated in order to instigate some sort of armed conflict between the American people and their government. If the American populace fires the first shot, this will not be a good sign. People forget that we never started a war with the British, it was the British that caused that to happen by attempting to disarm the Colonists. The king, in every sense, threw the first punch.

We, as a country and individuals, are in a dangerous situation here; fortunately, the Constitution provided for a way to deal with this issue. However, I have doubts that Americans will properly choose this path. Even now, hotheaded individuals are calling for revolution in order to keep our private property rights and liberties. As was pointed out by a police lieutenant from North Carolina, ‘liberty broadcasters’ (against their knowledge) will be used to fan the flames (in order to start an internal revolution) [Call to Decision, GCN, Jan 2, 2013]. Once the first shots are fired, this in turn will allow for the implementation of martial law.

If you need an example of this issue from a military standpoint, consider that my college and my state fired the first shots of the Civil War. We did not win that war. Keep this in mind as you read the rest of this document, please;

Instigators of revolution are all over the place right now, just as the executive office provokes the Republic by openly threatening to ban certain types of firearms. The media is quick to take only one side of the debate, making Americans (purposely) feel like they have no voice. This is all being done to cause agitation. The Governor of New York state, too, is threatening confiscation. Again, Americans are becoming upset at the government and the media for twisting the truth and threatening liberty (as they should be, but not for the reasons that they may think ).

These events are all too convenient …

Tonight, I got to hear Piers Morgan ‘debate’ Alex Jones about gun rights in America.  In short, it was a debacle.  Jones screamed that it was going to be ‘1776 Again!’ if any sort of confiscation took place.  Jones, in many respects, is a provocateur at best. One couldn’t be faulted for believing that he played right into Piers Morgan’s hands. However, those of us with a longer memory of Alex Jones’s stunts can recall how he nearly caused a state of martial law around the year 2000.

I’m sometimes reminded over the years that Jones almost successfully provoked a nation-wide social catastrophe – on December 31rst, 1999 right before Y2K – by falsely claiming that the Russians would be invading. Giving this, I personally witnessed folks ‘heading for the hills’, due to his broadcast. Had violence or hysteria broken out at that point, I’m certain the powers that be would have suspended the Constitutional Republic and instigated martial law. Even in those days, I and several others like Mr. Bill Cooper, questioned why Jones would do such a thing.

Jones has never done much for the liberty movement, I know it doesn’t seem like it when you look at his body of work, but it is true. By calling for a revolution on national television, he set the stage, again, for catastrophe.

Restoration, not revolution;

A restoration is a Constitutionally directed process that allows the loyal elements and state militias to restore order during a tyrannical takeover of the Republic.

Stated, as individuals of this Free Republic, we must avoid the trap of instigating a premature revolution.  Should we defend ourselves against unjust tyranny? Yes! By all means! But it should only happen under these conditions;

Any sort of violent action against the liberty of the American people has to be started by those that who would wish to abolish the Republic and bring America into the global system (or any other order) – period. As in poker, a verbal argument or a true fight, whoever throws the first punch loses. It is my belief that the American people are being set up to throw the first punch.

Given this clear understanding, if any tyrannical elements within our own government violently move against the American people, the Republic is allowed to mobilize. Then – and only at this point – what must take place is a restoration of  Constitutional law and order. This is the only condition where the people, as a whole and individually, are well within their rights to defend themselves through armed conflict against tyrannical oppression. If it occurs under any other condition, we may very well witness the fall of the Republic.

Restoration ensures that the rule of law takes precedence over injustice. Traitors to the Republic should be tried through the American system. They must be given a fair trial, tried for their crimes against the Republic, and if convicted, be punished for their actions. Like Waco, these tyrannical elements must throw the first punch. It must be obvious to all of the world who the actual aggressor is.

However, as we are currently poised, a situation is being set up to justify gun confiscation by allowing the armed portion of our Republic to prematurely pick a fight over a possible gun ban [which at this point, hasn’t even been introduced to Congress].

You have no idea how utterly well-prepared that these globalist forces are, when it comes to dealing with such a matter. They’ve been waiting for almost 100 years. In fact; they want it to happen.

This is a trap that must be avoided.

Bullies can threaten alot of things, whether or not they have the balls to take action is another issue altogether. Stated again, don’t believe the hype and fall for the trap. Revolutions are violent and their outcomes are uncertain. What lies at the end may not be the liberty that most of us so vehemently desire.

Prepare, plan and be vigilant – however, make no move that would jeopardize the stability of the Republic. I’m utterly convinced that many Americans are not prepared to endure a premature revolution given the current economic situation. Time has to be bought through patience and endurance.

We, as individuals, must make time and hold the voices calling for revolution at bay. For once America falls, be it by executive order of martial law or through an ill planned armed revolution, it will fall forever.

Thank you for reading. God bless you and your family, and if Providence wills it again: God save the Republic.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Alex Jones generally has the majority of his facts in line, but he clings to some really absurd claims, looks like an idiot, and in this case was used for a tool.

    Much like I feel about the NRA, I often wish he would STFU and let the grownups do the talking.

      • Actually, Alex used Morgan as a tool. Look at DrudgeReport right now. Morgan and thugs threaten to shoot Alex. Pictures of Morgan with his hand as a gun to the head.

        Crazy, yes. But crazy like a fox.

    • Agreed and this article has some good points. As law abiding, responsible, gun-owning Americans, we need to keep calm and believe in the system. Do what we can diplomatically like petitions and writing/emailing/calling officials with cool-headed, measured responses.

    • “Much like I feel about the NRA, I often wish he would
      STFU and let the grownups do the talking.”

      A very nice sentiment but I think a little misguided and
      naive. Outside a few actively trying for an aristocratic
      tyranny, the other side DOESN”T HAVE GROWNUPS.

      How long can any of us discuss the 2A without having
      the leaders of the other side instantly start calling
      us scare mongers, hate mongers and killers? So far
      the pro-rights movement has only responded with
      “sticks and stones may break my bones….”; then
      calmly tried to use facts and evidence. Unfortunately,
      this tactic is only useful on people who act mature
      enough to debate, not cry until they get what they

      Is this an call for violence? Absolutely not. It does point
      out that we are not debating adults, we’re arguing
      with children. Adults are taking this issue seriously
      because it involves our God given rights. However,
      the children are allowing draconian restrictions to
      civil rights even be discussed because they either
      don’t want/can’t handle personal responsibility.

      Look at how the antis refuse to address facts and
      statistics of firearm use and violent crime. To even
      discuss them is seen as an admission of being
      incorrect. Refusal to admit defeat and the inability
      to be wrong are attributes of the immature.

      • I get where you are coming from, but I think it is critical for public relations (you know that whole hearts and minds thing) for the public to see rational thoughts. Piers was reduced to childish babble and name calling repeatedly on his own show. The only reason Jones was called in was to use him for a tool so that Piers could point to one debate where he could at least pretend to have looked like the adult. The public can see the difference and Pier’s ratings show it.

        I really think the best solution is to have articulate people express facts with the appropriate passion and not resort to emotive ramblings.

        Take note that even of the people that were adult like in composure, not one of them gave a fair response to an AR’s relevance to home defense. This is a huge mistake.

    • Jones is not a champion for truth, or liberty. Listen to Jones for any period of time and you will come to realize his ‘position of the moment’ is malleable. He is first and foremost a media personality who cultivates his own self-importance and lines his pockets by seeding fear, regurgitating conspiracy theories, and feeding off fringe cultural phenomena such as ‘truther’, ‘anti-zionist’, Bilderberg group, and anti-establishment movements. Not to mention Illuminati Lizard People (I wish I was making that last bit up).

      Jones’ agenda is generating revenue by propagating fear, and there is media money in the Sandy Hook aftermath; despicable though it may be.

      Even a stopped clock is right twice per day. I do not fear what Jones has to say about the Second Amendment, but it should be presented by someone who actually believes what they are speaking.

      • One addendum to what I posted above: cries of “revolution” notwithstanding. Calling for such is inflammatory for its own sake. Or the sake of greater revenue (more fear equates to more audience).

      • I think the lizard jews from the center of the earth is David Icke, not Alex Jones. I also think that Jones believes everything he himself says.

        • I stand corrected on the lizards. Is was indeed Icke that originally promoted the idea and not Jones. I associated the premise with him as Jones has Icke as a guest on his show to speak about the Reptilian Agenda (sic) frequently.

          I am positive I’ve heard Jones rant seriously (not debunking) about the Reptilians on several occasions, but I’ll be damned if I can find a clip of it now.

      • im sorry, but “lizards”???? dare i even ask?

        Jones is pretty good for one thing; taking credit for the stolen work of others.

      • You are correct, Jones is an absolute charlatan. He latches on to whatever conspiracy theory is in vogue at the present time and runs with it. The worst thing is he doesn’t even come up with it, he just takes it.

    • Agreed, we don’t need people going nuclear on the issue. This is why Piers had him on the show, all he had to do was push a button and let him do the rest! This is also why Robert would never get invited! 🙂
      I have said this before, if you have some hermit type, or head of a religious cult being prosecuted or shot, it does nothing. The Media can spin this and it looks legit. When a retired vet with no criminal record, or a teacher or priest decides to fight back, the media will be faced with a huge challenge. If they are a parent and up standing citizen the media will be faced with outright lying to cover it up or maybe, just maybe we will see outrage from the public that the government is doing this to law abiding citizens. Death and blood grab headlines as sad as that sounds.
      BTW, I am not using the term gun control anymore. I am only using civilian disarmament. Thanks RF!!!
      We need to frame the argument into something we can win. When we start seeing people in media using the same term we will know our message is getting through.

    • Precisely. We’re still at the “hammer your politicians” stage, and I hope the ballot box in 2014 goes better than 2012. I’m sure at some point, the SCOTUS will inevitably be making a decision as to which guns can/cannot be banned. We have a loooong road to travel…pace yourselves and don’t do (or encourage) anything stupid.

      • Honestly, since Democrats have shown that they have no problem playing dirty, then I have no problem beating them at their own game and getting a Republican (or preferably, Libertarian) President in office and Republican control of Congress and push through a law increasing the number of Supreme Court Justices so that we no long have this crap of praying that one swing voter upholds the Constitution all the time.

  2. Piers Morgan has continued and accelerated the rating slide of CNN in his time slot. He has used the recent debate about violence with guns, and enhanced it with carefully chosen guests, to make his position as inflammatory as possible to boost those poor ratings. The gun debate is just a means to an end for Piers.
    Alex Jones went on the show for essentially the same reason. Not to defend gun rights. He wants the publicity, to try to go from the lunitic fringe, to get more mainstream exposure and boost his commercial value in the marketplace.
    Both examples are bad publicity for those who value freedom.

    • Which part of the scientific evidence revealing explosive residue within the rubble do you find kookish?

      I’m not a “truther” but what I find kookish is the idea of blindly believing the official story despite overwhelming evidence to contradict their version.

      • I won’t presume to put words in John’s mouth, but AJ is absolutely a truther kook. He is a truther because he is smart enough to know the official story is BS. He is a kook, because he can’t seem to separate fact from fiction, and he is a paranoid lunatic.

      • henry especially when the nano-thermite was discovered by dr neils harrit, one of the worlds most credible experts in chemistry.

        im sure neils harrit is a kook LMAO!!!!

      • Sorry, Henry, but there simply is no “overwhelming evidence to contradict” the official version. Even Niels Harrit’s paper on the residue from the Twin Towers, residue which was presented for examination some 6 years after 9/11, and in the interim was being held by non-scientist New Yorkers who knew nothing about safeguarding evidence from contamination, nowhere claims that the residue unequivocally contained remnants of any known nanothermite or explosive. In my estimation, the 9/11 truthers are unmitigated fruitcakes, and that one of them, Alex Jones, was in a position to present himself on nationwide TV, with such frothing-at-the-mouth emotionlism, as a 2d Amendment supporter, has done all of those of us who want to preserve gun-ownership rights, including the right to possess so-called “assault weapons,” some serious public relations harm.

        • yes there is “overwhelming evidence”.

          there’s a mountain of it. simply ignoring it doesnt make it magically invalid.

          • Sorry, WLCE, simply asserting, however forcefully, that such overwhelming evidence exists, is not good enough. If there is such overwhelming evidence, point me in its direction. So far, what I have seen and read, including the questionable assertions of Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Steven Jones (the latter of whose fellow academics held him in such contempt that he was relieved of his professorship at BYU), and various others, the idea that the Twin Towers debacle was anything other than what it appeared to be, to wit, a terrorist attack by 19 jihadists, orchestrated by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, strains my credulity much more than does the official version. As is often said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, I repeat, such evidence is lacking.

            • Academic stonewalling is hardly evidence. I’ve seen enough evidence presented (sorry no links handy) to believe the official story is a load of crap. That is NOT to suggest that I think all of the outlandish conspiracy claims are valid. Just that the official story is really weak.

              • InBox485, I’ll simply take you at your word, but also point out that you, like WLCE, provide absolutely no evidence in support of your assertion. Once again, a naked assertion is not an argument. BTW, when you refer to “academic stonewalling,” to what, exactly, do you refer? The physics department at BYU, which had NO vested interest in either supporting or debunking the “official” version of the events of 9/11/2001, reviewed the work of Steven Jones, Ph.D. as it related to that catastrophe, and deemed it to reflect so poorly on his, and by proxy, the department’s, scientific credibility, that it relieved him of his teaching responsibilities. Is it that which you are calling “academic stonewalling?”

              • I haven’t looked into that specific example, but I’ve seen enough academic stonewalling in various topics to know it happens. Your right, I’m not putting up specific facts. I’m nobody’s research department. I’m only stating that I’ve seen enough that I don’t find it unreasonable to have serious doubts about a lot of things the government has said. That’s it, nothing more, no need to read into it further than that.

              • InBox485, please, tell me what you’ve seen. That’s all I’m asking. Maybe if I see it too, I too will deem the official story to be crap. But as of now, the conspiracy theories seem to me to be weak to the point of incredulity, starting with the number of people who would have had to be involved to pull off the events of 09/11/2001 in the manner the conspiratorialists are offering as an alternative to the “official” version, and keeping in mind that the old saying, “Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead,” still holds true. My sense is that by now, one or another of the conspirators would have broken silence, if only anonymously.

  3. There’s not going to be a revolution. That’s just silly talk. There may be acts of resistance, but that’s to be expected. Anything worse is just Pierced Organ’s wet dream.

  4. Maybe that peaceful solution won’t be available. It hasn’t shown up on TTAG as far as I know as yet, but here in GA it’s been released that the partner and operator of FPS Russia and FPS Industries was murdered asassination style late last week. Second influential gun rights/industry player to die under very suspicious circumstances in a week. I know RF and most on this site don’t do conspiracy theory, but many others don’t do coincidences. Not the ones that plan on being around for a while, that is.

      • Found it. Thanks for the heads up.

        I’ll stand by my statement in the context of this thread. I believe Alex Jone mixes hard fact with enough bizarre BS in order to discredit certain groups and beliefs. Add his delivery and style, instant discredit for any person or cause associated with him. His abrupt shift in delivery during this interview is suspect, as is Morgan’s passive reception to the rant.

        Maybe it’s more conspiracy-minded suspicion, but I believe Jones is knowingly on the payroll of those wishing to harm the cause of liberty, be they private individuals, federal agencies, institutions, or some combination of all three.

  5. There is a lot of talk about revolution over events that have not even happened yet. There is a lot of resistance and a long way to go before a gun ban could happen.

    When I point this out there fallback seems to be “Well, Obama will just issue an Executive Order”. While I acknowledge that EO’s have been abused a lot in the past decade, they are not a magic wand that the President can wave and make the guns go away.

    I only recently returned to gun culture and I am surprised at how panicky and paranoid many gun owners are. Vigilance is necessary and action is necessary, but there is a vast gap between standing firm in the face of opposition and running around screaming that the sky is falling.

    • “Vigilance is necessary and action is necessary, but there is a vast gap between standing firm in the face of opposition and running around screaming that the sky is falling.”

      That’s a Quote of the Day right there.

      Mmm hmm

  6. We can right our ship without civil war. Alex’s hysteria is his form “look at me, I’m saying something important”. I don’t know how right he is, but something is defiantly wrong.

    • He’s a hysterical tool (and I mean that quite literally – I don’t hate the guy, he is just used for a tool). Most of his facts are correct, but critical facts are frequently wrong, and his conclusions and rhetoric is garbage.

      ANYBODY that thinks arms confiscations triggered the revolution or could justify a future revolution has been sorely misguided regarding history. The revolution was triggered by a massacre of an American militia that was shot then bayoneted in the back followed by a town being sacked by British regulars. That would be the modern equivalent of the National Guard rolling up, butchering a mid sized city’s police force, then sacking the city. So drop the rhetoric crap about taking arms up over a gun ban. People just sound like idiots talking about that.

      • You sir are absurd. If they actually come for guns, it is time to fight. The British did those horrendous acts BEFORE the constitution was enacted. Since then, we have learned from history and made a constitution that enabled the citizenry from being put in an extremely vulnerable spot, unarmed. Get your timelines straight before you make your absurd pacifist comments.

        • So if a gun ban is passed, where are you, pray tell, going to muster? Going to march on Washington with your three best friends and a few AK’s?

          Heck, why wait for another ban. “They” already came for your guns in a couple waves now. Just go for it already. Have fun, and let me know how it goes.

          The “citizenry” had guns before the constitution. In many if not most cases, guns far better than the British. They had contractual rights to those guns. The British were in breach of contract LONG before the revolution started. The entire bill of rights (not just the ones that people cherry pick) was an explicit list of contractual breaches that the British engaged in PRIOR to the revolution. The rights you speak of far predate the constitution. The amendments to the constitution simply re-enumerated a list of critical rights the colonists had which were routinely violated by the British.

        • Inbox…Well, I agree with much of what you say, and any “revolution” would certainly be ugly. That said, this isn’t 1776. I’ve seen first hand what a small group of lightly armed but determined individuals can do to the mighty U.S. Army during two tours in the sandbox, and Soldiers felt little or know kinship with the forces they were fighting, something that might not be the case domestically. Therefore, a march on DC isn’t necessary. Simply stating that you will resist confiscation and then using insurgent tactics to resist could be pretty powerful, and could be a basis for a growing movement…or not and it would join ruby ridge and Waco in the annals of failed resistance. A revolution would not have to begin or end overnight. It concievably could be a movement that grew over time, where there was no centralized or organized leadership for quite some time, not dissimilar to Syria or Libya. In this way there might be dozens of “first shots” spun by both sides as defensive. Both sides, over time, would draw like minded individuals to their side. I don’t know who would win, but that is how I would foresee this going down were it to come to arms.

        • If what you are suggesting is simply don’t cooperate with confiscation and bullets first if they try to take by force, then I would only interject an attempt to hide and evade in between, and we’d be on about the same page.

          IMO, one way or another there will never be a “revolution” over gun control. There will either be a mass fold over ala Britain or Australia, or there will be mass non cooperation ala prohibition, and statist thugs will be on the loosing side of enforcement attempts. I won’t guess which will be reality other than I’d guess it would vary widely state to state.

          That IMO is the vision of the 2nd amendment. When certain lines are just to painful to enforce, they aren’t. I don’t think the founders had a vision of civil war style revolutions in mind, but rather a painful barrier to things getting to that point.

          Oh, and I’m not a pacifist in case anybody is still wondering.

        • I think we are very like minded. Being aware of the painful consequences of revolution, and realizing that asymmetric “hiding and evading” would be the only successful resistance “a la prohibition” does not make you a pacifist. It makes you a realist. Those that favor outright confrontation would die quickly, while those like you who would resist in more creative ways would have a chance to survive, grow the resistance, and ultimately affect the change that would be needed with or without revolution.

  7. A peaceful solution would be best–if it’s a solution, and not simply another peaceful turn of the ratchet.

    Whenever we counsel peace, we should remember that both laws and executive orders are backed up by thousands upon thousands of guns, pointed at us. If Obama were to order, for instance, that such guns as 10-22’s be lumped together in the same legal limbo as machine guns and rocket launchers, be aware that his order is the functional equivalent of a gun to the face and the order “stand and deliver.”

    This is hardly peaceful.

    So far, everything is theoretical. We don’t know what will happen next; hell, most of us probably thought Obama was toast come November (I did). But we can’t afford to allow ourselves to take a passive role, or to erect test cases like “another Waco.” What if that never happens? What if all that happens is the same slowly tightening ratchet we’ve struggled against for the last 50 years? We can go peacefully to our graves, and bring the Republic with us.

    “Firing the first shot” is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it’s necessary. If it becomes necessary (a big if, and I can’t predict the circumstance, and neither can anyone), then to hell with the world’s opinion.

    • Good luck with that. Don’t bother to check your 6 though. Back up won’t be there. Exactly what sort of “first shot” are you masturbating to that you think will result in anybody else doing more than shake their head as you get buried?

      • ” I can’t predict the circumstance, and neither can anyone.”

        I guess you missed that part. Too busy projecting, maybe.

        • Projecting what? You said ‘“Firing the first shot” is not always a bad thing.’ In every case I know of, it has been a bad thing. Just wondering what fiction you were fantasizing about.

          When, has that ever been the case? Fortune favors the bold, but not the first shot.

        • Oddly enough, there’s no reply link to InBox485’s comment, but there is one to yours, Chase…so I’ll use it, instead. Please understand these remarks aren’t directed at you.

          IB485, if someone broke down the door to your house and pointed a gun at you, and you happened to have a gun in your own hand, pointed at them, are you going to wait? In the interests of what? Fairness?

          Police fire first all the time; and even though innocent civilians sometimes get killed, most of those shootings are good, and result in the demise of the bad guy. “Shooting first is always bad” is the sort of philosophy most of us gave up with cap guns and cowboys & Indians.

          As for the the “projecting” part: you’re the one who brought up psychosexual habits. Frankly, none of this makes me think of sex, but that’s just me.

        • First, masturbation isn’t exclusively a sexual reference (specifically the term mental masturbation is never a sexual reference – perhaps I misjudged your literacy), but it certainly was an allusion to your apparent fantasy.

          Shooting defensively isn’t even remotely related to an offensive first shot. If somebody breaks into your home, I don’t care why they are there, or who they claim to be. By all means shoot first and keep shooting until you are certain you have shot last.

          But name one time in history where an offensive first shot has been beneficial to the aggressor. It is a nonsensical fantasy of pure fiction that chest thumping colonists stood on the Lexington green and kicked off the revolution against the British to stop them from taking their guns. Didn’t happen that way, and people that not only claim it did, but claim it would/should happen again just sound like fools.

        • But name one time in history where an offensive first shot has been beneficial to the aggressor.

          Have you ever been in a 1 on 1 fight?

        • If you dont think throwing the first punch is beneficial to the agressor than I dont think you’ve been in a fight which wasnt a romperstomp.

        • Then you missed the distinction between defense and offense. If there is capability and intent, you are in defense. If there is mere potential, you are in offense.

        • So you dont think that the politicians (and LEOs and military) have demonstrated that they intend to disarm us? Or that they dont have the capability to do so?

        • Capability is marginal unless you are the one guy who says here it is come and get it. Intent is even more marginal. I think LE/mil has demonstrated that there are enough follow orders stooges to manage concentrated attempts at disarming when they put the entire nations jack boot collection on a single community, but what will happen in light of a nation wide ban order is a different story. And that is assuming one passes and doesn’t get back handed in court. You just sound like you are trying to pick a loosing fight.

        • LEOs confiscate guns from felons all the time. They’ve demonstrated both the capability and intent, and the vast majority are proud of doing so, and think of themselves as heros.

        • Yes I believe it is wrong is disarm felons. And it is not just those who are on parole who are disarmed, but all felons. Why should a felon not be enabled to defend themselves? In addition what happens if a law is passed when you become a felon for owning guns?

  8. Another civil war would be disasterous. War casualties, millions more suffering from broken infrastructure making food and medicine scarce, and panic from those who’ve never gone without. The Revolution and thr Civil War was lived by harder people than 90% of us are, myself included. We don’t want it, and frankly we don’t need it. We have the political clout to fix the system, we just have to keep fighting.

  9. Well said JJ. Everyone on our side needs to chill and keep their powder dry. No Fort Sumter moments. We need to let them make the first, second and even third moves before we can act. Let’s not take the bait and fall into their traps.

    • One problem is that they WILL make those first, second, and even third moves if they are given no reason to believe there will be consequences they aren’t willing to pay. Revolution is a serious matter, but “in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.” We might not have to resort to arms, prematurely or otherwise; but the current administration, and its allies, must be made to understand that there is a line they had better not cross, or they will surely cross it.

      But that brings up another matter: IS THERE a line? Or are most people–even most “people of the gun”–willing to put up with anything now?

      • Oh, there’s a line alright, make no mistake about that. They will walk right up to it and taunt us without mercy. Don’t take the bait until they cross it. Right now, all they’ve got is baseless rhetoric and bluster. Like I said the other day, they aren’t playing with fire, they’re messing with nitro. Our job at this moment is to make them understand what a dangerous and foolish game they are playing, nothing more. If they choose to escalate, we will escalate in turn with a proportional response. Civil disobedience and noncompliance with whatever edicts they articulate would be early steps that we can take. If they decide to get tough, well….

        • You and I are on the same page, then. We must make them understand that all this blather about armed resistance ain’t just blather…or they will certainly come charging across that line.

    • They have all ready made those moves. The Patriot Act, the NDAA, drone strikes targeting American civilians. What more do you want?

      • i agree. its not time yet however. we will know.

        we must always exhaust every possible avenue of civility and diplomacy.

        i dont feel like fighting another war.

  10. All this talk of 1776 and revolutions and Stalin is over-the-top blather. Alex Jones is just another guy trying to build his core audience, as is Piers. Neither cares about the outcome, as long as they’re making money. The threat in the current situation is of further alienating a large part of the US public by imposing ever more costs and restrictions on average folks. People are starting to notice that they’ve been paying their taxes but the government gets ever more in debt. Arms in the hands of law-abiding people are an economy. Ultimately fewer cops are needed and crime is curbed. The problem is, of course, that the current crop of politicians can’t face the reality of gun crime: It’s in the cities. Actually convicting armed robbers and murderers in the cities is very difficult. I know that for a fact in Philadelphia (see, e.g., Philadelphia Gun Court). I assume it is true in Chicago and LA as well. Juries. Fear of retribution. That simply isn’t a suburban or rural problem. President Obama, Eric Holder, put aside your fears of armed white people and face the real problem, 16 trillion of debt yet the poor urban ghettos are still bloody, unwilling to ‘rat,’ sick, fat, and poorly educated. Confront that directly. By the numbers urban ghettos are the locus of gun crime and gangs. Focus your attention there.

  11. This blog post could have been written by Alex Jones himself. The author listens to soundbites of him, at best. He simply became unhinged last night. I think PM is a predator, a bully-and he deserved the disrespect.

    Jones gave this illustration once:

    “If someone comes up to me with a hammer and says “I’m going to hit you with this”, I can’t shoot him, but I can warn him I’m going to shoot him if he tries. ”

    What’s wrong with that? This is exactly what the gun grabbers are doing; threatening to hit us in the head with a hammer.

  12. I agree that we should not be goaded into another “Fort Sumter”, but the idea that the “Republic” still exists or could ever exist again is ridiculous. As Lysander Spooner said, the constitution has either authorized such a government as we have or has been powerless to stop it. Getting back to the constitution will not provide lasting liberty.

  13. I’ve met Alex Jones in person but not on purpose. Douche. Paranoid douche.
    He was telling me I was a govt. thug because I was in the US military at the time. I ignored him. I suggest others ignore him as well. He does not speak for me as a gun owner or on any other issue either.

    • You are a government thug for being in the military. It was your job to kill (or support those who did) for no other reason than a politician ordered you to. And what organization has deliberately killed more American citizens than the US military? In the Civil War alone there were 50,000 civilian deaths.

      • That tracks with Smedly Butler (USMC) (from

        “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

        • General Smedly Butler was a true American Patriot.

          Although I’m sure TTAG would label him a Conspiracy Theorist Nut Job!

        • dual medal of honor recipient.
          one of the most decorated warfighters in our country’s history.

          certainly one of the most, if not THE most, decorated marine. It amazes me that most marines do not know who he is…

  14. The last thing any of us want is a real civil war. I do however, see more than a little utility in reminding the would-be despots that if they push too far it is one alternative future.
    Bob Owen’s What you’ll see in the rebellion is a great example of this type of warning.

  15. Everyone worried about Chicago & so far that is a paper tiger, its not even a good fight yet. I believe we do need to not only keep up the pressure but cause them the loss of their precious criminal safe zones. Civil rights for blacks took quite awhile & indeed we are told we aren’t welcome either in many establishments. So far so good though, Randy

  16. I hate to say it, but we won’t be the ones to make the decision. It’s going to be the people that follow Alex like he is Jesus Christ who will push us to the brink. We just need to be ready for any eventuality.

  17. It sounds like the author is a LEO or military member who doesnt want to see his friends die.

    whoever throws the first punch loses
    It sounds like this guy has only ever been in lopsided fights if he thinks this is true.

    if any tyrannical elements within our own government violently move against the American people, the Republic is allowed to mobilize. Then – and only at this point –
    The DoI, codified in to US law, does not impose any such restrictions, in fact it states “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…” And even so, the US military has killed more American civilians than any other organization in history. From the Whiskey Rebellion to the 2011 drone strike against 16 year old Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi, the government has deliberately killed American citizens, who were often unarmed.

    They must be given a fair trial, tried for their crimes against the Republic, and if convicted, be punished for their actions. Like Waco, these tyrannical elements must throw the first punch. It must be obvious to all of the world who the actual aggressor is.
    So what ATF agents were criminally prosecuted for the Waco seige? Oh yeah, none were. Surviving members of the branch dividians however got plenty of jail time.

    • “So what ATF agents were criminally prosecuted for the Waco seige? Oh yeah, none were. Surviving members of the branch dividians however got plenty of jail time.”

      youre exactly right unfortunately. you ARE talking about the same government that went to war and is implicated in the deaths over a hundred thousand innocent iraqi men, women, and children under false pretenses. The same government complicit in the 9/11 attacks to secure Afghan resources and open a pipeline across the Helmand providence. and certainly the same government that plotted to instigate false flag attacks to justify a war with cuba (see operation northwoods).

      Those that are crying for revolution need to realize what they are potentially going up against. the second american revolution may not be remembered.

  18. A.I., I’ve seen martial law up close,1976 in the Phillipines.Jeeps with M-60s ,armed patrols responding to unrest and insurgencies . In Manila,a young boy,maybe ten or so stole a sailors watch off his wrist,the sailor cried out and the theft ended when a member of the Phillipino Constabulary ended the theft with a 12ga. That’s martial law.If you’re going to grab the tail,you better worry about the teeth.

  19. We need a line in the sand. Where is your line? In Germany they kept moving the line until there were no people standing behind it to defend it. A government large enough to give you everything you have a whim for, can take everything you have on a whim. I see a lot of speak softly people who work with the system but where is the stick when the system refuses to work. The stick must be always ready, never put away.

  20. We constantly harp on the antis getting wrapped up in their emotions. We must guard against the same in ourselves.

  21. In the wake of Katrina, the Parish of New Orleans, instituted SWAT raids to collect guns from the survivors.

    At what point and in which way, should we assert our rights should Feinsteins’ power grab assume the patina of law?

    American gun owners, the police and the military, often one and the same, are natural allies. This regime proposes to set them against one another.

    Of course, we must use to the Soap box, the Ballot Box and the Jury box before resorting to the Cartridge Box. In that, I heartily agree. But heed this from our Founders:

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”

    — Patrick Henry

    • Soap box
      OWS tried this and all that happened was they were beaten and pepper sprayed. In other times such as the Haymarket affair, those on the soap box were executed by the state.

      the Ballot Box
      This is what gave these politicians who wish to take our guns the authority to do so.

      the Jury box
      Is the same thing as the Ballot Box, the Attorney General/States Attorney in States are often elected, or appointed by politicians.

      the Cartridge Box
      It is all we have left.

  22. It matters not who fires the first shot. The public will be informed by the State controlled media that it was the lunatic fringe revolutionary/terrorists, either way.

  23. Part of that preparation is making alliances abroad. You have got to have your ducks in a row before the party gets started; that means more than merely having an AR. We need modern day versions of Ben Franklin & John Adams to put feelers out there to other countries and groups about the interest in a change in management to this experiment known as “America”.

    Americans will have to do the unthinkable – get help from non-Americans if an admin. change is going to be successful. The 13 colonies got it the confederacy did not; it (foreign help) is what almost every successful admin change has had. Last, while we should show restraint, we must fight over principle and not merely because our daily lifestyles are threatened. If we wait for to get to the point where armed resistance is the only chance for survival (bullet, back of head, ditch) then we won’t get our “at bats” it will be too late.

    BTW – As in poker, a verbal argument or a true fight, whoever throws the first punch loses – Robert where are you getting this from? Is this a “moral” thing as in he who throws the first punch gives up the high ground? Cuz – he who throws the first punch wins more times than not. Robert, in a one-on-one gun fight do you want to fire second . . . if you get that chance?

  24. I tend toward agreement with the writer. There may indeed come a time when armed conflict is our only recourse. That is a question each of us has to answer for ourselves; drawing our own ‘lines in the sand’ and declaring to ourselves ‘for this I am willing to stake my life and my treasure’. Liberties, once taken or forfeit, are not returned without paying a terrible price. These are interesting times.

  25. okay…just for the sake of discussion:

    we should avoid revolution because we fear the invocation of martial law? i would think that the latter leads to the former, not the reverse…

    in any case, as cooler heads have already stated, we’re a long, long way from needing to “break glass in case of emergency.”

    we should spend more time calling and writing our congress critters (and local pols, as well) than we do hypothesizing the next civil war.
    they will listen to us – they usually do – whenever we bother to let them know how we feel.

  26. Now is the time to line up international contacts ala Franklin & Adams. The confederacy did not get help – the 13 colonies did and it made a world of difference. A steady supply of gray stuff that looks like doe will go along way this time around.

    BTW – Robert, what do you suggest we do if a military or LE agency wags the dog and gets all gulf of tonkin on us? How would you respond to a false flag operation? If a change of management kicks of under less-than-desireable conditions are you still for fighting?

  27. I am willing to fight and die for my rights and everybody else’s . I did it in Iraq and if you want to come and take my ar 15 from me ok , from my cold died hand you can !!! I do not have my ar to hunt , I have it as a final deterrent to terrany , I am Cuban American my parents rights were taken once and they came to this country for freedom and the right to bear arms !! If they do come , and I am forced to kill , I will be an outlaw, a evil man , a terrorist. But one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter !!!!! I hope the senate , congress , and Obama wake up , we law abiding citizens , we protectors of the constitutions , are good people at heart

      • Matt , maybe the way I wrote it was not clear , I was fighting and was prepared to die in Iraq. ( I am not making a statement policaclly about the war , or my views of the war, that is a seperate topic. but I did place my life on the line when my country needed me ) I am saying i will protect my constitutionally protected rights , I am and will stand up, fight , and die if needed for my rights. To me this is more than just a gun debate , to me it is the question. Do I still live in a country that has a constitution and a bill of rights that supersedes anything else. No empirical president with his executive oreder will take my rights away. I vow to fight that fight, I love my country and will defend against enemy’s foreign or domestic !

  28. I fully understand, appreciate, and agree with the author’s sentiments. The only problem I have is with the author’s implication that government forces working against the constitution have not already thrown the first punch. Government has already thrown punches. For example any and all police officers in the state of Illinois will use any and all force necessary — up to and including deadly force — to take down a citizen who dares possess a firearm on a public sidewalk. The same applies to a citizen who would dare be armed in a federal government building. Then we have the whole Waco thing where ATF raided the compound because they suspected that the inhabitants had full auto firearms. There are other examples as well but I think you get the idea.

  29. Alex jones is RIGHT ON! If you think revolution is wrong. you’re a piece of sh.. go home coward and just hand your guns over and be done with it. the rest of us who love our country and understand the ENORMOUS sacrifice our ancestors made for us to have guns AND TTAG website should hold firm and stand fast and fight if necessary.

  30. It seems to me that the signal has been hung in the Old North Church, and that our most urgent mission now is to counter the establishment media, by personal contact, letters on more mainstream blogs, to get the word out convince your less committed neighbors and friends to set the conventional media back on its heels. To make it clear to lawmakers that the tea party might have been a little one compared to what could come if they vote to penalize law abiding citizens. If they want to tighten up and improve treatment and supervision of mentally ill folks, maybe not let kids have a half dozen gun crimes before incarceration, good! But leave the 95 percent of the people alone. Study of underground storage is always a worthy topic….
    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

  31. I don’t know why people are talking about violent resistance. There is no need. We need only follow the lead of the Canadians. Canadians are not exactly the most aggressive people on the planet yet when they were told that they had to register their guns they simply refused. The government extended the amnesty four times for those that had not complied to no avail. The government finally said uncle and changed the law destroying the records of all the non-restricted guns that had been registered. Well it was a Conservative government that changed the law.

    There were other reasons the program was scraped of course among them was that it had an estimated cost of $2 million and year when in fact it was costing over $66 million a year; this in a country of around 30 million souls.

    Yes, I realize this was on non-restricted guns and an AR-15 is restricted in Canada. However there are those that want all guns registered here and it has been done in many countries. It was good to see at least one country resist. With the Internet I can’t believe Americans would simply comply. There would certainly be a movement to resist.

    BTW, Alex Jones is kook but a smart kook that preys on naive and clinically paranoid. He knew what he was doing on CNN. His base sees nothing wrong with his appearance and he can only gain more audience. It doesn’t matter that the Russians never invaded, the British pound did not collapse nor did the dollar. Bush did not declare martial law and millions of people have not been confined to FEMA concentration camps. All these things AJ predicted that did not come true yet his followers still believe him!

    One would think that these failures in predictions would be enough to turn people away from him but they are not. Many of his followers are mentally disturbed. I know one that is paranoid schizophrenic that hangs on AJ’s every word.

    Of course not all of his followers are mentally ill however, there is certainly something wrong with someone that continues to believe a person that has been wrong time and time again.

      • Save the guns for their fake alien invasion that they drafted that HR bill for. You know, the one about [classified] where they get to re-write the Bill of Rights 😉 H.R. 8791, er … [classified].

  32. Mr. Farago,

    Thank you for writing this, it is about time that somebody said this about Jones. There are too many people talking about armed conflict when what is need is proper political action and court cases to strengthen the 2nd Amendment position.

  33. Jones said alot of good things, then went all ‘black helicopter’ while screaming like a lunatic. Unless he only cared about personal ratings or something, he should reconsider his tactics.

  34. As much as I don’t see it happening, let’s be honest…what would shake up the complacency of youth, incite true trial by fire, and force people to truly appreciate the freedom and cushy lives they lost in the midst of destruction more than a devastating war? The reason we are where we are in this country is because, to paraphrase an old quote, no one today has had to truly fight for the freedom’s they enjoy, and they take them for granted.

    As for the interview…Morgan and Jones debating…two lunatics screeching at each other. That about sums up what passes for “rational discourse” nowadays.

  35. Yes. This.

    The purpose for guaranteeing the right as stated in the Second Amendment is to put the people in parity with government troops, if called upon by their states to muster with their own arms suitable for military use, to defend against central usurpation of authority executed by force of arms.


    I applaud the author. Wiser words were never spoken.

  36. So the Daily Show featured one of the Alex Jones rants. The MSM needs to use more video clips from him.

  37. As a Jewess in the US, I can only say that ANY anti-gun plan from an ignoramus
    like Slow Joe Biden or his dirty Kenyan boss is bound to be a loser idea.
    Certainly it will make all REAL Americans put our 2nd Amendment FIRST! Both
    criminals and overbearing governments respect FIREPOWER, not sweet talk. And
    remember that America wasn’t won with a registered gun! -Wendy Weinbaum

  38. Just as in 1775, the “king” will fire the first shot when some gun-owner answers the door, and tells whomever is there to pick up his guns:
    “Go To Hell!”

    There will be a “martyr”, hopefully not that many –
    “I regret that I have only one life to give for my Country!”

Comments are closed.