Question of the Day: Are You An Insurrectionist?


Judging from Elliott Fineman’s tweet (above), Lisa Bloom appeared on MSNBC to declare that America armed the Las Vegas cop killers. That’s pretty rich for a civil rights attorney – given that the natural and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. And that Jared Miller was a prohibited person. And “we” didn’t arm those crazies any more than “we” armed Eliott Rodger, James Holmes, Adam Lanza or all the other psychos who used firearms to take innocent life. “They” armed themselves. And “we” need to be armed to protect ourselves against “them.” Anyway, the anti-gun meme of gun rights advocates => insurrectionists => terrorists is off and running. Is it true? Are we – at the least – proto-insurrectionists? If we are, if armed Americans stand against government tyranny – real government tyranny, not a couple of cops eating pizza – does that make us fair game for law enforcement? Where do you stand in all this?


  1. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Not true. We also arm other countries’ insurrectionists as well.

    1. avatar Tim C says:

      Evidently we also arm drug cartels along with various other international criminals.

    2. avatar Taylor TX says:

      sheeeeit the USA arms anyone but its own civilians, we have to do that ourselves.

      However, if youre syrian, mujahideen, part of any country anywhere wanting a coup or just lucky on a tuesday, the USA might help you get some of them “end user contracts” 🙂

      1. avatar AMOK! says:

        …because they can be trusted compared to US citizens

  2. avatar pwrserge says:

    Bushwacking cops is fairly low. Fighting back against police brutality and jackboot tactics… Not so much. My rule of thumb is that if they shove a gun in my face, they are leaving the scene in a bag. It does not matter what fancy uniform they wear.

    “You don’t know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake. You’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed.”

    1. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      said every 15 year old on the internet everywhere… Moderators can we get stuff like the above bagged up? Last thing TTAG needs is to be dragged down into the gutter by keyboard warriors who probably dont even own guns for Shannon and Co to stroll along and pick talking points from.

      1. avatar AMOK! says:

        very well said…..said everyone ever.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        So you support police brutality and jackboot tactics? As I made fairly clear, shooting officers “just because” is wrong. As a grand jury recently decided, shooting officers who break down your door and throw flash bangs at your kids… not so much.

        “Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer’s life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Try getting away with that in 48 of the other states.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          @ Jus Bill… The second case cited is precedent in all US territories.

        3. avatar twency says:

          If I could do just one thing internet-wide to cut down on the clownish keyboard-commando logorrhea it would be to remove all references to John Bad Elk. The John Bad Elk decision DID NOT SAY THAT. The text pwrserge quoted about it is the internet equivalent of an old wive’s tale.

        4. avatar John in Ohio says:

          The case has also been cited on various internet sites as giving citizens the authority to resist unlawful arrest. This claim is normally put forth in connection with a misquoted version of Plummer v. State.

          In fact, the opposite is true—all of the cases that cite Plummer and most that cite Bad Elk discuss the issue as defense against unlawful force, and most of the cases note that a person may not use force to resist an unlawful arrest.

        5. avatar Tex300BLK says:

          more was responding to your internet bravado by pointing out that if “they” put a gun in your face you are probably going to do exactly what they tell you to do, like anyone of the other tough guys who post here.

          And if you actually do intend to send them away “in a bag” posting such on the internet in a public forum is not only extremely stupid it is also being unnecessarily and deliberately inflammatory, and only gives the antis ammo to call all of us insurrectionist psychos like those two clowns in Vegas. When you start using hyperbole like “Jackbooted” this and that, you lose credibility and you alienate yourself from the average population who would otherwise be sympathetic.

      3. avatar Pat says:

        Jack booted tactics deserve lead in the skulls. Period. Of course, you do it under the cover of night, at a different time and in a different place. Asymmetrical warfare is a bitch.

    2. avatar T.G. says:

      Alright Mal, put away the Callahan full-bore auto lock with customized trigger double cartridge thorough gauge slowly…..

      1. avatar AlleyF says:

        Thanks TG

  3. avatar Jm R says:

    If I was, I wouldn’t be stupid enough to say so on the internet.

    1. avatar Vhyrus says:

      A computer bank in Maryland just lit up.

      1. avatar rosignol says:

        Goddamnit. Am I gonna have to start using TOR to get my TTAG fix?

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          That’s funny…people still think that “anonymous” services protect them from the NSA.

        2. avatar Stuki says:

          More like, The NSA is not going to tip their hand and demonstrate publicly which supposedly anonymous services they can renonymize, over a TTAG comment.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        No, more like in every state’s Fusion Center.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      This pretty much sums it up:
      When should you shoot a cop? (link to YouTube video)

  4. avatar Martin says:


    Nice use of the quote from Mal, Firefly is the best show.

  5. avatar Craig says:

    Lol I wish. Then I could sell my image rights to a T shirt company and inspire generations of wanna-be rebels without causes.

  6. avatar DrVino says:

    We don’t arm insurrectionists. Except in South America, Libya, Syria….

  7. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    Yeah we armed the guy. We had the NRA gun store for crazies set up a block from his house with bright neon lights stating no background checks. /sarc

    It must be nice to be so detached from reality like the CSGV. I think I need an #oogaboogaNRA in this post.

  8. The “issue” should not be about armed civilians overthrowing the government — but preventing the government from overthrowing the civilians. As of now — Americans are the only major population that CANNOT be ruled by force. Armed civilians are a bulwark against Fascism and a Police State.

    You would think many on the Left — if consistent — might like that concept — but this is a Culture War and the term “Insurrectionist” is just an attempt to dehumanize gun owners. Weren’t Vietnam War protesters “Insurrectionist” ?? I think we were.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      Jeez! Don’t you understand anything?
      This is different, because now that the state is pushing the agenda they like, insurrection is bad.

      Also, weren’t the guys who wrote the Constitution insurrectionists? King George III probably saw them that way.

  9. avatar DTAL says:

    Again with this weird worship of every other “developed” country’s soft tyranny and oppression. When did the fact that we possess liberties that foreign countries do not become a bad thing rather than a trait to be celebrated? A country being “developed” does not make it an enviable or respectable place.

    You should start worrying when a nation is unable to arm those who would oppose the government.

    And since thanks to these shooters, I’m now required to say this, no I don’t advocate random violence, I’m speaking from a 2A perspective.

    Also, “Obama has armed more worldwide insurrectionists than the NRA” agreement.

  10. avatar Zachary marrs says:

    Well it dose sound better than “domestic terrorist” so I guess so

  11. avatar Roy says:

    And here…We… Go.

    Now they will label anyone who doesn’t agree with complete disarmament, democratic socialism, and other tyrannical bollocks as an “insurrectionist,” or “domestic terrorist.” My, how they just LOVE to rewrite the definitions of those words. How can people not see the bold-faced lies in such libel?

    Those cretins’ have no morals, capitalizing on the deaths of uniformed officers while the bodies are still warm.

    And another thing to note, it’s mighty convenient that those who stand to gain the most from labeling others as terrorists are the very same people who get to write down the legal definition of a “terrorist.”

  12. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Not yet, but it’s on my “todo” list…

  13. avatar Gordon Freeman says:

    I really wish that they would apply their logic to other things that they support. Most would probably argue in favor of protecting the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and it could probably be argued that there are many who get away with their crimes because of those two amendments, but no one is arguing that the ACLU or organizations like that are “aiding and abetting” criminals and murderers. But if you apply the “logic” used here in regards to gun rights towards those who support privacy rights, that’s where it takes us.

  14. avatar launchpadmech says:

    The political parties armed them with the stupid things in there heads. We are all police and I am sure any of you would help a cop in need and call them brother and sister. Withy years in law many people looked out for me because I treated them with respect.

    1. avatar Taylor TX says:

      Reciprocity is important 🙂 , I can usually tell within 30 seconds of interaction how the rest will go and its all depending on what you said “because I treated them with respect”.

  15. avatar Steve says:

    That is what the second amendment is supporting so yes, arm us ‘insurrectionists’. If the government went of the reservation, dictatorship,whatever, what do you think that they will call those that fight for our rights as the constitution prepared: ‘insurrectionists’.

    But, then again, this is a strategy, by not calling them isolated crazies or criminals they now can assign us all under the new term of the day. “Gun Violence”, “Assault Weapon”, “Insurrectionists”

  16. avatar Taylor TX says:

    Theyre slipperying up the slippery slope, this IMO will probably be used to the level of Newtown-ic proportions.

  17. avatar Doug says:

    I think she means that Obama & Holder armed the Mexican drug lords that killed our Border Patrol Agent. I mean really, these people are getting more looney with every turn. You could jack-slap them to China & back and they still would not come out of their blind sheeple state of mind.

  18. avatar Sammy says:

    I’m sending some funds to the gun rights groups I belong to and shutting off the computer for a bit. This irrational hysterical projection of paranoia aimed at enslaving us is wearisome. I need a little R&R. SAF, NRA GOA will hopefully sign new members this week.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      I think that’s exactly the right course of action at this point. That and some decent booze.

  19. avatar BDub says:

    I stand where I have always stood….sovereign. That is, I am an individual, to be taken as is, judged by and held accountable to my actions alone, in possession of and reserving all, my inalienable rights to comport myself as I see fit to the exclusion and limit of any other sovereign person to do the same.

    μολὼν λαβέ

  20. avatar Ralph says:

    If Obama can give Stingers to the Taliban, is it too much for me to ask the government for a .22? I’ll even wear a turban if that’s part of the deal.

    1. avatar Richard in WA says:

      Wasn’t it *Reagan* that gave Stingers to the Taliban? To fight the Soviet Mi-24s?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        The latest case was in Libya right before the entire Benghazi “false scandal”…

  21. avatar michi says:

    Actually most “insurrectionists” probably get weapons domestically. In whatever country they’re operating in. I guess antis would rather it be black market though, than out in the open. Because then there’s shamed involved or something. Feelings.

    I still want to see studies on the “aw, shucks” factor in getting weapons. As in, “Hey, I want to kill a bunch of people. Can I buy a gun?” / “Why, no, that would be illegal!” / “Aw, shucks.” (DING! LIVES SAVED!) … sure.

    Which seems to be the ‘workflow’ that antis think would happen if we just had more legal barriers. Legislation and “magical wishes” you know…

    Outlaw guns and “Domestic terrorists” will just “upgrade” to stateside suicide bombings. But hey, suicide bombings are less pre-intimidating or… something. I guess. Feeeelings.

  22. avatar rlc2 says:

    What I get from this lede, is Elliot Fineman from CSGV is possibly misrepresenting Ms Blooms statements with an inflammatory statement that America arms insurrectionists in the US.

    I think Mr Fineman needs a visit from the Secret Service, or perhaps DOJ, or even the IRS, to explain his terroristic theories. Or Ms Blooms attorney, if she finds that characterization offensive, but from profile, and her world-view of her books at Amazon, I suspect she is happy for the attention.

    Personally, I have absolutely no affiliation with or sympathy for the kind of obviously paranoid nutjobs who shot the Las Vegas cops. Those two are scum, but

    so are those who dance in those officers blood, to promote their agenda- gun-grabbers like Fineman and Watts are going to desperate lengths to achieve their goals, but their motives are obvious, as is their appalling lack of morals,

    as is the StateRunMedia’s for playing along …
    but then, “if it doesnt bleed, it doesnt lead” is the old news hype quote, right?

  23. avatar Roscoe says:

    I think a lot of honest, patriotic law abiding people are being pushed into viewing themselves as “insurrectionists” as a result of the propaganda efforts of the antis and gun grabbing politicians.

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Yes, but I’d say it’s more than that. The leftists never stop when they get what they say they want. They just keep coming back with more and more outrageous demands, pushing normally peaceful, innocent people until they start snapping. Then, they gleefully shout “See! See! I told you they were dangerous!”

      I’m not saying the couple under discussion were innocent and peaceful. The guy, at least, seemed to be a disaster waiting to happen. But that’s to be expected. As the leftists continue to do everything they can to subjugate us, the least stable can be expected to crack first.

      And make no mistake, the collectivist authoritarians will keep going until they are stopped. I used to believe that they would be stopped at the polls. I’m not sure anymore, but I still hold out hope that it can be done this way. I recently visited a couple of civil war battlegrounds. I read the stories told by the survivors. It was horrible, and another conflict of this kind is to be avoided if at all possible.

  24. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    To the Watts of the world, I probably appear so.
    In the mirror? I’m just a freedom loving person.

  25. avatar Mk10108 says:

    The other side of that coin, kept hidden by MOMs, is America legislators, sheriffs, police, are instrumental in the murder, rape, & robbery of Americans & immigrants by not allowing lawful self defense.

    To continully say criminals adhere to laws is the absolute nonsense and removed from reality.

    1. avatar Richard in WA says:

      If only Watts had convinced Walmart to be a gun-free zone then none of this recent tragedy would have happened, right?

  26. avatar Rich Grise says:

    I’ll cop to activist, but using whatever means necessary to restore the Constitution to its Right Place as the Supreme Law of the Land is, in my not-so-humble opinion, the opposite of insurrection!

    The coup is on! The enemies of the Constitution are in occupation of Washington DC, and it is our job to throw the bums out. I’d kinda like to see some tarring and feathering going on, personally.

    1. avatar Great Scot says:

      Welcome to the NSA Class 2 watchlist! Would you like to upgrade to Class 1 by researching explosives and flight paths?

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    “[E]xtremism in the defense of liberty is no vice . . . moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

    — Barry Goldwater, July 16, 1964

    True fifty years ago, still true today.

  28. avatar DNS Guns says:

    As a firearms manufacturer I arm nobody. I’m the same as a farmer in that I produce a product. People who purchase the product have armed themselves. Same as a person who eats the food a farmer produces feeds themselves. We don’t live in a collective (yet) where we are all responsible for each other and everyone has their needs met regardless of their ability. My security is not dependant on anyone and I don’t ever see where I would want it to be. I expect my military to do its job and defend the constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic but my personal security starts where that ends. The manner I choose to protect myself is nobody else’s concern and won’t be a problem for anyone until they threaten it.

  29. avatar Mediocrates says:

    Not to worry… The US has been arming insurrectionists in other countries for decades.

  30. avatar Accur81 says:

    I still work for the government, and I’m probably on the same list as everybody here. At the very least, the NSA / DHS could correct my spelling errors when they read my emails.

    I don’t see myself opposing police unless they really go off the deep end, but I’m not confiscating firearms from responsible citizens.

    There’s currently a standoff in N. Hollywood. A man led police (and me) on a pursuit near multiple freeways. I saw it near Griffith Park. He was seen on a roof with what appears to be an AR-15.

    1. avatar John says:

      Saw that. Wonder what the story is there.

      According to Webster’s, an insurrection is a violent uprising against authority or government. I’m neither violent nor uprising, so I don’t think the label would fit me.

      On the other hand, I’m sure any statist who wished to could apply it to me just by painting civil rights advocates as ‘anti-authoritarian’.

  31. avatar Great Scot says:

    I am not an armed insurrectionist, I am just an ordinary citizen who loves Big Brother.
    Hey, John in the NSA. How’s the wife and kids? Did you hear about my tragic boating accident in which I lost all my firearms? Of course you did…

    1. avatar NSA_John says:

      Wife and kids are doing fine, thank you for asking. Yes, we surveiled the accident with NRO satellites.

  32. avatar Ing says:

    I’m no insurrectionist, I’m just a dude. Not The Dude, just a dude. Why can’t these people just let me abide?

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      “Why can’t these people just let me abide?”

      I wish I knew.

  33. avatar former water walker says:

    Nope…why admit to anything folks?

  34. avatar TheSleeperHasAwakened says:

    Are they referring to the militarized police?

  35. avatar Jake says:

    No. Every known revolution in human history has failed to accomplish its stated goals or anything meaningfully good, including ours. We had a few nice pieces of paper that were ignored when convenient from day one, even by their very authors. Slightly better than the lot experienced by the participants in such events as the Servile Wars, but still not enough for progress that would allow us to expand beyond this planet before we use it up.

    I’ll certainly allow there is a better way forward than any all-state, all-market, or two headed cooperative beastly solution presented by either the left or right. I couldn’t honestly tell you what it is, but there should be more allowance for experts that aren’t hirelings for one interest or another to present alternative solutions.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Why do you people so steadfastly ignore the Libertarians? The Libertarians have had the right answer all along, but somehow people seem afraid of it, always have an excuse, or freedom is too extreme or something.

      What part of Freedom is it that you’re so terrified of?

      1. avatar Jake says:

        The funniest part of this is you have negatively responded to me in the past for taking the libertarian track instead of the progressive one. The American tradition of disagreement for its own sake is wearing thin on me.

        The libertarian solution is not necessarily the insurrectionist one.

        If real market libertarianism were tried even 30 years ago, light water reactors would be rusting empty by now and oil rigs would be artificial reefs while the world runs on hot liquid salt and reaches for Mars.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “The funniest part of this is you have negatively responded to me in the past for taking the libertarian track instead of the progressive one.”

          Show me. It shouldn’t be hard to peruse the archives and find an example of me doing that. Please, show me where I have “negatively responded to me in the past for taking the libertarian track instead of the progressive one.”

          If you got that impression, then there was a missed communication of some sort, and I really need to see links to the actual posts in question in order to repair the damage.


        2. avatar Jake says:

          Not ringing that bell. I’m not your fact checker. Regardless, your original assumption in this post alone that my solution is not the “libertarian” one is fallacious. I stated clearly the solution is not all-state, it is not all-market, and it is certainly not going to come from a malicious cooperative of the two. To the politicians of the dual-named single party US political system, there are no other options. The notion that without a fluid oligarchy the only two possibilities are chaotic anarchy or monolithic despotism is what keeps the fake RvD kabuki rolling and the same fat cats paid whether the “left” or “right” takes the reins.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Not ringing that bell. I’m not your fact checker. ”

          Ah. So you’re either a liar or delusional, and can be ignored.

          You made the accusation, it’s up to you to show your evidence or shut up.

      2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        “What part of Freedom is it that you’re so terrified of?”

        To the self-appointed elite, the fear is loss of control. To many of their supporters, I can only imagine that what they really fear is the responsibility that comes with freedom.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          And the risks… It seems like some handle risks better when they live under the delusion that someone else is mitigating them. Of course, that’s related to responsibility but, IMO, in its own category. Fear (risk) and sloth (responsibility).

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          No, I mean specifically, I’d like to hear some Anti-Libertarian explain to me exactly which part of the Libertarian platform that they disagree with, or explain why it is that rather than leave the safety of the herd, they’ll vote for the evil with their herd’s monogram and switch from a left boot on their neck to a right one. Why do the same old stuff over and over and over again, but still expect different results? Put some Ls in Washington, and maybe they can chip away at the Rs and Ds, both of whom want to dominate you.

          Libertarians – slowly transforming the country with our plot to leave you alone.
          Libertarian Party – the closest to “None of the Above” that the ballot currently offers!

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Amen, Brother Grise! 🙂

  36. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

    No, our government is being insurrectionist.

  37. avatar Excedrine says:

    No. I am nominally non-violent myself, unless of course you cause harm to me or mine (which I know you do not have the balls to do, Sugarman, and neither do any of your deluded sock-puppet followers so we’re good there at least). I am only anti-authority in so far as when said authority behaves badly, which is quite frequently nowadays, sadly.

    But our government sure likes to arm insurrectionists, though. As does every one of our other European allies, for that matter. Cue the Syrian “rebel” caught on video with a British-made Accuracy International AS-50 a few months back. Oh, and let’s not even mention that it’s the Mexican government that “leaks” its own military weapons to the cartels like a fucking sieve, and that the vast majority of those weapons were usually sold to the Mexican government by our government.

    Also note where I place the emphasis here, too, folks. It hints at one simple, undeniable and all-consuming settled historical fact: that it is government that is the problem.

  38. avatar Ardent says:

    I am not an insurrectionist. At the point I bear arms against my government it’s become illegitimate and no longer answers to the people. An insurrection is mounted against a legitimate government, that I would not do. I might engage in revolution, were it to come to that, but not insurrection.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      I think we should call it a “non-volution” or “un-volution,” because we’re trying to throw the commie usurpers out and restore the Constitution.

  39. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Are we – at the least – proto-insurrectionists?

    Insurrectionist? Not if this definition is correct: insurrectionist – a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)

    Proto-insurrectionist? Perhaps? Probably? IDK!

    If we are, if armed Americans stand against government tyranny – real government tyranny, not a couple of cops eating pizza – does that make us fair game for law enforcement?

    Hell no.

    Where do you stand in all this?

    If the above definition is correct then how could someone who fights for constitutional government be considered one who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority? Is the authority still constituted at a certain point? How else would a people successfully fight hard tyranny but through force of arms?

  40. avatar Anonymous says:

    The founding fathers were insurrectionists:

    Answer me this – what is the difference between a freedom fighter and an insurrectionist? When does one use the term insurrectionist or freedom fighter? Ans: It depends on which side of the propaganda machine you stand.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Since they were fighting against the Crown as a colony, yes. However, since the Constitution created and now defines our government, would it really be insurrection by definition or would it be more akin to defending against a domestic enemy?

      I don’t mind the insurrectionist label but I believe there is a distinction since the colonists successfully broke away and formed our constitutional government.

      I don’t disagree with your post and was asking a question while making a statement. I agree that it really depends on which side of the propaganda one finds one’s self.

  41. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Ok first off the people In Vegas where mass shooters who happened to kill police, unlike te IRA or even the shooter in Canada recently they did NOT target only government employees. The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, at least the civilized difference is that the terrorist attacks innocent civillian target. The freedom fighter only attacks targets of military value or agents of the government he opposes.

    Those crazies may have wanted to style themselves as honorable revilutionaries or freedom fighters, but they are not. The guy in canada maybe, even Timothy mcviegh could argue he was not a terrorist on grounds any innocents killed where collateral damage and reasonable steps ( timing of bomb etc) where taken to reduce civilian casualties.

    Secondly hell yes we are potential intersectionists. That’s the reason we are armed. That’s the reason to have armed citizens. It’s a Cold War between the state and the people with the advantage always to the people when they are armed. The state knows every armed civilian is a potential assassin. They know around every corner on every overpass in every window a sniper could be hiding ready to reduce the size of government by one bullet. That keeps them from becoming despotic. It even keeps despotic people out of the government, because they know they can’t gain enough power to rule in the corrupt fashion they would chose. Sure it would be suicide for any person to take on the US government. It would also be suicide for the US government to take on the people of the USA. That’s the final check and balance in our system.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email