Tuesday, January 1, 2013

There will not be a rebellion

By Donald Sensing

Bob Owens engages in a little creative thought experimentation about the aftermath in America if the Democrats' plan and desire totally to disarm Americans comes to pass. His post is called, "What you'll see In the rebellion."

Let me explain, gun grabbers, how your confiscatory fantasy plays out. Let us imagine for a moment that a sweeping gun control bill similar to the one currently suggested is passed by the House and Senate, and signed into law by a contemptuous President.

Perhaps 50-100 million firearms currently owned by law-abiding citizens will become contraband with the stroke of a pen. Citizens will either register their firearms, or turn them in to agents of the federal government, or risk becoming criminals themselves. Faced with this choice, millions will indeed register their arms. Perhaps as many will claim they’ve sold their arms, or had them stolen. Suppose that as many as 200-250 million weapons of other types will go unregistered.

Tens of millions of Americans will refuse to comply with an order that is clearly a violation of the explicit intent of the Second Amendment. Among the most ardent opposing these measures will be military veterans, active duty servicemen, and local law enforcement officers. Many of these individuals will refuse to carry out what they view as Constitutionally illegal orders. Perhaps 40-50 million citizens will view such a law as treason. Perhaps ten percent of those, 4-5 million, would support a rebellion in some way, and maybe 40,000-100,000 Americans will form small independently-functioning active resistance cells, or become lone-wolves.
They will be leaderless, stateless, difficult to track, and considering the number of military veterans that would likely be among their number, extremely skilled at sabotage, assassination, and ambush. 
After a number of carefully-planned, highly-publicized, and successful raids by the government, one or more will invariably end “badly.” Whether innocents are gunned down, a city block is burned to ash, or especially fierce resistance leads to a disastrously failed raid doesn’t particularly matter. What matters is that when illusion of the government’s invincibility and infallibility is broken, the hunters will become the hunted. 
Unnamed citizens and federal agents will be the first to die, and they will die by the dozens and maybe hundreds,  but famous politicians will soon join them in a spate of revenge killings, many of which will go unsolved. 
And it goes on in that ilk for many more paragraphs, ending,
Eventually, the government will turn upon itself. The President will be captured or perhaps killed by his own protectors. A dictatorship will form in the vacuum.
Well, we're not far from a dictatorship now, but I'll stick with the precepts of Bob's post. I left the following remarks as a comment at Bob's post, but figure I'll just paste them here, too, with some expanded thoughts:

Here is what will really happen. Congress passes the law, the NRA et. al. scream about it and then … nothing happens.

Some people (no more than 20 percent) affected by the gun-confiscation law comply with the turn-in order. The rest don’t comply. But neither do they organize or form resistance groups. They don’t start assassinating politicians. They just hide their guns and continue with daily life as before.

Will there be another American revolution over such a law? Not a chance. Not for this reason nor any other. The American people decided beginning in the 1930s that we would surrender our sovereignty to the federal government and we have been doing so fervently and devotedly since then. Obama is merely running the end game. The vast majority – let me repeat, the vast majority – of Americans are fully sheepled now and will not forcefully resist any additional oppressive measure by this administration nor any other to follow.

What then for the potential insurgents of Bob's imagination to do? They must not wait to react to the administration's actions. The insurgency must begin now, but not a violent one, a political one. Liberty lovers need to forget about sending candidates to national office. Washington is beyond reform from the inside. What we must do is take over selected state legislatures and governorships, preferably of adjoining states, and lay the political groundwork for interstate unity revive the doctrine of nullification, dead though it has been since Andrew Jackson killed it. Nullification has been struck down numerous times in the federal courts, too, including the Supreme Court, going all the way back to first half of the 19th century.

So?

There is in fact not just a little Constitutional rationale behind nullification, as both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote. In previous challenges related to the doctrine, the federal government prevailed only because the states concerned folded. One result, the major one at that, was the most extreme form of nullification there is, secession. And we know how that turned out.

In fact, how it turned out is key. The question of secession is not a Constitutional question at all, at least not since 1865. IIRC, there even was a Supreme Court ruling in the 1870s that explicitly recognized that, as a matter of Constitutional law, secession was a moot subject since the attempt and its resolution had been made through force of arms. Violence, not law, was what settled the question of secession.

But what would the outcome be today if only four or five states united in declaring null and void certain federal enactments, based on common legislative acts passed by their legislatures and signed by their governors? What exactly can or would Obama do about it? Challenge in the courts? The states can just ignore them. Send federal marshals? The state can arrest them.

Ultimately, returning the United States to a republican, Constitutional government is a matter of will. It is a question of who will blink first. Violence such as Bob Owens imagines (he does not propose it) will serve no purpose but that which attacking Fort Sumter opened for Lincoln: to respond the same way. That was South Carolina's major strategic and ultimately fatal mistake.

What will be called for now is peaceful but unyielding noncompliance, literally a nonviolent revolution. And the most important thing to remember about beginning a revolution, whether peaceful or not, is that the King must be, and must be seen as, the initiating actor. That’s the position to put the federals in: opponents of the Constitutional republic of which the states are the protector.

Meanwhile, Gerard Vanderleun finds this gem from Pravda:


Related: "Obama To Fully Engage Gun Owners with Armed Feds in 2013"

Update: Think nullification is not possible? Then you need to know what Illinois' legislature is up to.

One measure would ban the possession, delivery, sale and transfer of semiautomatic handguns and rifles. People who currently own such weapons could keep them but would have to register them. The bill would allow semiautomatic weapons to be used at shooting ranges, but those facilities would be regulated.  
National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde told lawmakers the bill would restrict about 75 percent of handguns and 50 percent of long guns in circulation today. He also said it would treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals, and is in conflict with Second Amendment rights upheld by the courts.  
"I've never seen a piece of legislation that tramples on so many court decisions," Vandermyde said.
This despite last month's federal court ruling:
On December 11, in a major win for Second Amendment rights, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals threw out Illinois’s virtual ban on the carrying of any guns, whether concealed or otherwise. 
In Moore v. Madigan, the state of Illinois claimed that there was no historical evidence of a “generally recognized private right to carry arms in public in 1791, the year the Second Amendment was ratified.” The Seventh Circuit rejected that view, criticizing the state for asking the court to repudiate the Supreme Court’s historical analysis in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).
If what the legislature is up to now is not nullification, what is it?

Update: Chuck Pelto, with whom I have corresponded off and on for many years, responds:


TO: Donald Sensing, et al. RE: There Could Well Be a Rebellion.... ....but it won't be initiated by the Constitutionalists.
Here is what will really happen. Congress passes the law, the NRA et. al. scream about it and then ?nothing happens. -- Donald Sensing
That would be nice. However, you don't seem to be paying much attention to the vitriol of the Left's 'eliminationist rhetoric'. That, combined with the 'hatchet' of any such law, indicates something more insidious than you seem to appreciate. This is being played out in the same manner that Lenin and Stalin used to do in the Kulaks?ussian land, business and home owners?f the 1920s: demonize, disarm and destroy. The difference between US and those poor people is that many of US are armed. The Kulaks were no better armed then the mobs that came to "hang them from every lamp post", as Lenin exhorted HIS 're-distributionist' foot-soldiers. So, in order to put Obama's re-distributionist mob on a level playing field, he needs to disarm US. If you doubt this 'conspiracy theory', please explain away Operation Fast and Furious: a project implemented to fulfill the Obama administration's bogus claim that Mexican drug lords were buying their weapons from US.
Some people?no more than 20 percent)?ffected by the gun-confiscation law comply with the turn-in order. The rest don? comply. But neither do they?rganize or form resistance groups. They don? start assassinating politicians. -- Donald Sensing
Initially? No. Most people would not 'organize'. However, after a few reports of 'home invasions' by law enforcement types, where multiple members of their 'dynamic entry' teams are reported dead by 'resistant' individuals, others will realize there's a war going on. And, as you and I both know, they'll begin coordinating with their associates, i.e., fellow military types on what to do to protect themselves.
They just hide their guns and continue with daily life as before. -- Donald Sensing
On the other hand, I liked the way some were discussing how they'd deal with the 'polite' knock on the door.... I'm sorry, officer. I lost all my weapons in that canoeing accident over swift rapids in a deep river. Sorry that I can't remember just where I was, as I had a serious bump on my head from a big rock in the rapids. On top of that, the dog ate my ammunition.. But REALLY? What happens if it's not a 'polite' visit from the law? Rather their visit is more of a 'home invasion' at Oh-Dark-Thirty? At which point organization is not an 'option', it's a necessity. On the third hand, back on the stages of any rebellion. Ours from 1776, started out 'unorganized', except for the 'militia' at Lexington and Concord. Look at the Boston Massacre....recreated outside of Waco back in 1992. But we're not that well organized these days, save for the National Guard. And maybe that's why the DHS and the other federal agencies are so paranoid about the organization of various independent 'militias' today. Especially if they've got the likes of you and me involved. I'm not sure how much a cannon cocker can contribute to such an organization. As opposed to a Ranger. But I'm sure any military type with Christian morals is on their DHS/FBI/NSA Enemies Of Obama 'watch' list. Especially if they've purchased a firearm in the last four-ten years.
Will there be another American revolution over such a law? Not a chance. Not for this reason nor any other. The American people decided beginning in the 1930s that we would surrender our sovereignty to the federal government and we have been doing so fervently and devotedly since then. Obama is merely running the end game. The vast majority ?let me repeat, the vast majority ?of Americans are fully sheepled now and will not forcefully resist any additional oppressive measure by this administration nor any other to follow. -- Donald Sensing
I disagree. A lot of indicators I've noticed are pointing towards a second 'revolution' and a rather '[in]civil war'. After all, if the executive, legislative AND judicial branches all fail to abide by the Constitution of the United States, as the Founding Fathers intended it, what recourse is there? At this point, the first one has obviously failed. The second as well, if they pass such draconian gun-laws. The third is just one Supremes appointment away, unless the lower courts are already forgetting their oath regarding the Constitution. But I'm curious as to why you think the rest of US?specially those of US who seem to be more dedicated to the oath of office we took when we became combat-arms officers in the US military?re so willing to 'forget'?
What then for the potential insurgents of Bob's imagination to do? They must not wait to react to the administration's actions. The insurgency must begin now, but not a violent one, a political one. Liberty lovers need to forget about sending candidates to national office. Washington is beyond reform from the inside. -- Donald Sensing
I believe I did address this in a reply to a comment on this thread from someone else earlier. And, as a matter of fact, the 'insurgency' has already begun. Look around at the articles from Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, Glenn Reynolds and others. Bob just happens to be more direct. The others have been beating about the proverbial 'bush' for the last four years. And it's really a shame they weren't more forthright. As it is, they're like Boehner and other polite Republicans that didn't have the courage to speak the truth in no uncertain terms. Now we're likely to pay for it. All of US.
What we must do is take over selected state legislatures and governorships, preferably of adjoining states, and lay the political groundwork for interstate unity revive the doctrine of nullification, dead though it has been since Andrew Jackson killed it. Nullification has been struck down numerous times in the federal courts, too, including the Supreme Court,?oing?ll the way back to first half of the 19th century. -- Donald Sensing
Not as familiar with 'nullification' theory as I probably should be. I'll research it. But if the federal courts have struck it down, then I get the distinct impression you're saying that all three branches of the federal government have failed US already.
So? There is in fact not just a little Constitutional rationale behind nullification, as both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote. In previous challenges related to the doctrine, the federal government prevailed only because the states concerned folded. One result,?he?ajor one at that, was the most extreme form of nullification there is, secession. And we know how that turned out. -- Donald Sensing
Thaaaat's niiiiiiice. State level government has failed US as well? Wonderful....
In fact, how it turned out is key. The question of secession is not a Constitutional question at all, at least not since 1865. IIRC, there even was a Supreme Court ruling in the 1870s that explicitly recognized that, as a matter of Constitutional law, secession was a moot subject since the attempt and its resolution had been made through force of arms. Violence, not law, was what settled the question of secession. -- Donald Sensing
I'm no fan of 'succession'. It is a stupid idea that was proven to be ineffective back in the 19th Century. If it had succeeded, the Third Reich would be around today and Hawaii would be a Japanese 'protectorate'. As for 'violence' being an effective recourse when the Law fails, well, we'll witness that applied soon enough again....the way things are going. The question is which side will prevail? The totalitarians? Or those who believe in the ideals of the Constitution?
But what would the outcome be today if only four or five states united in declaring null and void certain federal enactments, based on common legislative acts passed by their legislatures and signed by their governors? What exactly can or would Obama do about it? Challenge in the courts? The states can just ignore them. Send federal marshals? The state can arrest them. -- Donald Sensing
Now there's an idea. But in order for that to work then it proves that the courts, as well as the executive and legislative branches of the federal government have failed US. And we're back to 'revolution'. And, if the federal government has to go for the violent approach, we're back to Owen's scenario.
Ultimately, returning the United States to a republican, Constitutional government is a matter of will. It is a question of who will blink first. Violence such as Bob Owens imagines (he does not propose it) will serve no purpose but that which attacking Fort Sumter opened for Lincoln: to?espond?he same way. That was South Carolina's major strategic and ultimately fatal mistake. -- Donald Sensing
All politics, as well as war, is a matter of 'will'. You and I both understand that. Probably better than most others. As for the 'violence'.....none of us here are proposing it. We're merely discussing how it will play out should the federal government use violence to enforce an act that is a direct violation of the Second Amendment. You and I BOTH know what an 'illegal order' is. The question is what are you or I or anyone else here WILLing to do to resist an illegal order? As you mentioned earlier, it's a matter of 'will'.
What will be called for now is?eaceful but?nyielding noncompliance, literally a nonviolent revolution.?nd the most important thing to remember about beginning a revolution, whether peaceful or not, is that the King must be, and must be seen as, the initiating actor. That? the position to put the federals in: opponents of the Constitutional republic of which the states are the protector. -- Donald Sensing
Again, I'm all for the idea of 'peaceful' civil disobedience on this matter. However, the question is whether or not the Obama administration and it's media enablers will go along with being 'peaceful'. With all the eliminationist rhetoric being spewed by the Left, the media and other sources, e.g., university professors, the governor of New York, etc., I'm kind of thinking they don't mind the application of violence to enforce any such unconstitutional law. I don't expect any violence on the part of the Constitutionalists unless Obama initiates violence. And said violence would be in the form of the classic midnight 'knock' on the door, i.e., dynamic entry by a SWAT team, of homes where they know people have effective modern firearms. How would they know that weapons can be found in such houses? How was young Ms Nyugen known to be the person who?n 2010?ave Spengler the Bushmaster he used to kill two volunteer firemen late last month? They're supposed to destroy those records after the purchaser has passed the state-level security check. Obviously SOMEONE is keeping them. So they know what you've purchased. And they're likely come a calling for them. I like the way Lincoln put it.... Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. Regards, Chuck(le) [Be Prepared.....]


Bookmark and Share