24 January 2013

Unpossible Insurgencies

If the people don't have "military grade weaponry" then the powers that be should rest easy right?

Well, only if they are fools who don't study history.

When "military grade weaponry" isn't available, insurgents steal it from the military, adapt weapons that are available to their own use, or manufacture weapons as needed.  Clearly "gun control" is no threat to an insurgency.

Gun control is no threat to the assassin.

Gun control is no threat to the criminal.

Gun control is only a threat to someone who has something to lose by not playing by the rules.

In America, or what used to be America, the right of the people to keep and bear arms has been a hotly debated topic for centuries.  In the Dred Scott case the Supreme Court ruled that negroes could not go free as then they would enjoy the same rights as whites, including the ability to keep and bear arms where ever they chose.  The thought of armed, free, blacks (or in the case of New York, immigrants) was so scary that white people willingly laid their own legal traps against gun ownership.

The idea behind "gun control" has always been that the "uncivilized" should be mastered by their betters.  Always.

No matter the language they hide it in, "for the children", gun control has always been about keeping those uppity niggers in their place as "a reasonable solution."

When a politician talks about "second amendment remedies" liberals are reduced to pants shitting hysterics.  When private citizens talk about second amendment remedies, the liberals like to use that as yet another excuse that "the uncivilized niggers" need to be disarmed so that the good liberal (white) folk can rest easy from the threat of those who would be free.  Joan Peterson, you are a racist small minded and petty person with delusions of both adequacy and relevance.

The second amendment has always been our "Sword of Damocles" that has hung over politics in this nation.  When the South withdrew consent by force of arms, it took force of arms and an invasion to push a political agenda down the throats of those who didn't want it.  After Waco and Ruby Ridge who thinks that it "can't happen here, again?"
"Some are whigs, liberals, democrats, call them what you please. Others are tories, serviles, aristocrats, &c. The latter fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society; the former consider the people as the safest depository of power in the last resort; they cherish them therefore, and wish to leave in them all the powers to the exercise of which they are competent."   Thomas Jefferson
What good old TJ was trying to tell us, is that those who would be your masters want the power only for themselves.  And TJ would be ashamed of how the term "democrat" has been twisted into what he considered "aristocrat."  The 2nd Amendment is all about keeping an armed an dangerous populace.  Armed with weapons of war, what the liberals call "military grade weapons" is the intent of the 2nd.  Hence the "militia" language.  If the arms are not suitable for use in the militia they wouldn't need protecting.  The Founding Fathers knew this.  What they underestimated was the stupidity of the men that followed.

But what does that matter?  I can make nitric acid from urine over time (anyone can, just need access to your own urine and some readily available reagents).  Once you have nitric acid all sorts of neat explosives are readily synthesized.  So what if it is illegal?  If you are going to break a few laws, might as well make them BIG ones, right?  So what if making guns illegal has never stopped an insurgency, EVER.  Clearly gun control has nothing to do with political stability.

Gun control is the worst kind of nostrum, like opium it makes people feel a little better while slowly killing them as they have to take more and more of it to feed a mindless, irrational addiction.  There is one good medical use for opium, palliative care, when a terminal patient just needs to be made comfortable before death.  Gun control...less useful than opium.

The problem with disarming a populace to gain political power is that you make rebellion ever more likely.  And once the people are "fully disarmed" and you are able to implement your "final solution" to build your utopia, well that is the time for one of those unpossible insurgencies to happen.


Anonymous said...

Writing a paper about the evil futility of gun control for a college level English paper I sourced the congressional records. Found a 1982 hearing report that sourced the debates over the civil rights acts of the 19th century. Egalitarians made some of the best arguments for the 2A that I've read. Robroy

riverrider said...

umm, holocost? kulak purges? american indians? kmer rouge? gun control can absolutely prevent/end an insurgency. they won't be getting mine, until they get all the bullets first.

Anonymous said...


To me, the headlines coming from our side about "gun control enabling X-Y-Z atrocity" have always seemed very stretched. In every case I know of, these atrocities were enacted on a very, very, very small minority population. If they would have been armed they may have done some damage to those coming to kill them ... but they certainly wouldn't have stopped it, or discouraged it from happening. There were simply not enough of them to be scared of. They were, generally, extremely small minority populations who were used as political fodder.

In the case of the USA, and, really, all successful insurgencies, the populations conducting or supporting (actively or inactively) the "insurgency" are a major percentage of the population. Here, it is probably 40-50%. Iraq - 30-50%. 'Stan 50%. Etc. Etc. I would contend that in this day and age of All-the-time social media and TV, around 10-15% of the population who are insurgents or insurgent supporters would be enough to effect change.

The "mutually assured destruction" principles applies, to a point: When the oppressor cannot just wipe the offending population from the earth, a insurgency has a chance to be successful.

Of course, in the case of the US ... hopefully states just break off, the federal gov says "good riddens,"or is too scared to do much about it, ... and, then, hopefully end of story. No one wants a shooting war or blood if it could be averted.

Anonymous said...

An excellent article, AM. The younger gun-owners are pretty ignorant when it comes to the origins of gun control in America.

Much of gun control was due to, as you put it, “ ‘the uncivilized niggers’ need to be disarmed so that the good liberal (white) folk can rest easy from the threat of those who would be free.”

Our primary ‘defender’ of the Second Amendment has been for gun control since 1871:

- "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871." — NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth, NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

- In the 1920s, NRA leaders helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/xcibviewitem.asp?id=3247) -- model legislation for states to adopt that established new, restrictive rules on carrying firearms in public.

- Karl Frederick, the NRA's president, said at the time, "I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons... I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses."

- The NRA also endorsed the first major federal gun control law of the modern era, the National Firearms Act of 1934, and NRA had endorsed the Gun Control Act of 1968.

- “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States,” NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth told Congress, shortly after Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy.

- “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons,” said California Gov. Ronald Reagan in May 1967, after two-dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles. Reagan said guns were “a ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will.” Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ), as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen."

- “You do know that I am a member of the NRA and my position on the right to bear arms is well known,” Reagan said, speaking out in support of the 1994 Brady bill to create new background checks and a waiting period for gun buyers. “But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady Bill and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay.”

All this ‘gun control’ has led us to the point you so eloquently express, “well that is the time for one of those unpossible [sic] insurgencies to happen.”

It scares the crap out of me to think that this is really happening. Not that I’m afraid to take up arms for my country again – no, but what the Civil War II would entail.

You’re absolutely correct, even the defeated Jews in Warsaw ghetto managed to fight for month with arms created by themselves and provided by dead SS $hit.

I’m quite certain that a modern insurgency (domestic contingency operations) would be devastated for all sides and unfortunate civilians trying to avoid the collateral damage.

You put it perfectly: “The Founding Fathers knew this. What they underestimated was the stupidity of the [wo/]men that followed.”

How very sad. Are our 'leaders' really this stupid? We will see.


Sanders said...

We can make cogent, educated arguments against gun control until we are blue in the face.

In the end, the only thing the tories will understand is armed men saying, "NO!"

Anonymous said...

May I presume if you hear that the top brass is being queried by the current admin on the brass' loyalty and willingness to engage in confiscation you would let us know.

I was just reading at freerepublic some conspiracy sounding nonsense to that effect. IMO such hysteria from our side is counter productive, but it does exist. rrs

AM said...


Please expand on your ignorance of insurgencies. What you note is populations that largely went along with the powers that be instead of choosing to fight, even the American Indians.

How many Jews willingly got into the trains? Only Warsaw and the Bielski Partizans exist in our memory of Jews who chose to fight. And the fought in spite of the gun control measures. The American Indians who chose to fight did so despite gun control measures (in some cases).

Note that not all insurgencies win. You never win an insurgency by force of arms, you win by staying on the field of battle once the other side decides to take their ball and go home.

Anonymous said...

sorry here is the offending conspiracy nonsense. IMO all this does is demoralize, but conspiracy theory does sell to the EAster Bunny Lives crowd. rrs


Anonymous said...

AM, a bit off the topic – I apologize, but would appreciate your input.

My wife asked me last night what is the key difference between an insurgency movement and terrorist organization?

I attempted to enlighten her that, in my mind, the main difference was the targeting of non-combatants – the use of terror achieving the objectives of operations, which only would alienate the population’s support the insurgency require.

The guerilla forces can adhere (must hold on) to the international rules regarding the law of war in accomplishing the goals, an issue a SOF blogger addressed some time ago on his morality of the land warfare post.

If there were a militia leader (hypothetically) who would promote the tactics of unrestricted slaughter of non-combatants from, lets say liberals, democrats, compassionate conservatives, establishment Republicans to every level of government in America (from Town Council on to those who merely work who at City Hall to the clerk that works at the politicians office, etc.), to the media, entertainment industry, academia, public education, union members; and, to every person that “pulls lever” for Blue or establishment Red; his is list would probably include a “commanding officer” sleeping next to his wife and the auto mechanic working at the LEO carpool; and he would almost certainly advise his troops that the Patriot is morally safe when engaging the blue voter, RINO or non-combatants, such as Sierra Club members ...

Should his definition of failure be that the North fucked up by leaving Southerners alive, and he calls for warranted preemptive action, would you, AM, say such a man – hypothetically - to be a guerilla/insurgent fighter or a terrorist?

Thank you.


AM said...

Insurgencies normally have a limited political goal against a recognized government against which they have a legitimate complaint.

Terrorist organizations lack that limitation, often targeting multiple governments in order to enforce their ideals through terror.

The real difference is that when insurgents win, they stop fighting. When terrorists win, they keep fighting.

riverrider said...

and you think american won't "go along"? the majority are so ingrained in "following the law" that they will blindly turn in/register their weapons, their only means of resistance. calling me ignorrant won't change that.look at new york. how can you say my view was ignorant? are you some kind of rhodes scholar? do you have intel from 1850 that i don't? not freaking likely. you need to check yourself, its your kind of rigid selfrighteousness that gives us a bad name. open your mind and close your keyboard. out here.good luck.

AM said...


Sorry, this is my blog, so consider yourself blessed that I leave your comments up for now.

I happened to read an article this month about a journalist buying an AK variant on the "black market" in New York City. His article explained that was how most New Yorkers did it since the licensing and registration process was so onerous. You can google it.

So clearly there are more guns in NYC than are registered. Even in "peace loving civilized Europe" the best compliance rate for registration was around 20%.

And yes, most people will "go along to get along" until they have a very personal reason to fight. Just because you have an "illegal, unregistered weapon" doesn't make you Pancho Villa or Larry of Arabia.

And it is further proof that a "gun ban" is not any sort of preventative measure against an insurgency. Normally mass killings involve the use of overwhelming force against a minority. Whether that be "one village at a time" or "one ethnic group at a time" or however you slice the pie, that is the preferred method of tyrants.

The Native American Indians won a few battles, but they were doomed from the start to lose the war. No safe havens, no infrastructure, no real support network, no modern trainers. Why don't you go look at some of the old photos of "Indian Scouts" who were hired by the US Army to track down other Indians? And really that isn't even an example of an insurgency, only a mightier nation conquering several fragmented and weaker nations.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your response, AM

I recognize no definition of terrorism, insurgency, or guerilla war produces a precise, clear-cut description. The area under discussion is extensive and hard to define, but since we’re in this thread commenting about a ‘potential’ insurgency in the U.S. (I decipher), we ought to stick to that narrow topic.

“In one definition an insurgency is a movement - a political effort with a specific aim. Another difference is the intent of the component activities and operations of insurgencies versus terrorism. There is nothing inherent in either insurgency or guerilla warfare that requires the use of terror. Ultimately, the difference between insurgency and terrorism comes down to the intent of the actor.

“Terrorists routinely claim that were they to adhere to any "law of war" or accept any constraints on the scope of their violence, it would place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the establishment. Since the nature of the terrorist mindset is absolutist, their goals are of paramount importance, and any limitations on a terrorist's means to prosecute the struggle are unacceptable.”

According to one of the SOF bloggers, “these are immutable realities in unconventional warfare.

- Observances of fundamental human rights will recognize the dignity and worth of the individual and the fundamental freedom of all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Human rights violations will not be tolerated.

- Civilians shall be treated humanely and may not be used to shield military operations.

- Enemy Prisoners of War and civilian detainees will be treated humanely and in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

- Orders to commit war crimes are illegal and must be disobeyed.

- Soldiers who violate the law of war will be held responsible for their actions. Superiors who order violations of the law of war are criminally and personally responsible for such orders, as are subordinates who carry out the orders.

- Weapons, munitions, and techniques calculated to cause unnecessary pain and suffering are forbidden.

- The point is not that "the ends justify the means," because they don't.

- You will not win if you abuse the sensibilities of the civilian populace.

- Killing family members does NOT "demoralize" the fighters. It pisses them off, and makes them want retribution.

- It's immoral to target non-combatants. There is no belief system I know of, anywhere in the world (even orthodox Islam) whose religious doctrinal texts says it's okay to murder people.

- I will not go looking for the fight though, and I will never condone, nor even entertain the notion, of killing innocents. In my experience, that is best relegated to the would-be tough guys who haven't experienced the reality of watching someone bleed out in the dirt, wondering why they drew the short straw that day.

- I'd rather "throw my life away" for a moral stand, protecting some douchebag's wife or kids, than live to be 110. At least my children will know I lived and died my beliefs, and stood up for morality.

-The point of this article was that you don't target non-combatants. So, to simplify things, my stance: You don't shoot your neighbor because he voted for someone you don't like. That's contrary to the concept of Constitutional Liberty. You don't target the local commissar's wife and kids, just because her husband is a douchebag.

- Don't come to my blog and try to tell me I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about on dealing with the after-effects of killing people, or that I don't understand the "realities" of unconventional warfare.

So, AM, based on the above, I’d suggest that the hypothetical ‘Leader’ and his group of ‘freedom fighters’ would be a terrorist group rather than an insurgent band of freedom-loving patriotic Americans.

What is your read on the above?

Thank you.


AM said...


You have a good grasp of it. You win an insurgency by winning the hearts and minds. You don't win the hearts and minds by being a dick. If people generally gave in to terror tactics Israel would not exist.

I don't know where you got the idea that I'm talking about a game plan for a potential US insurgency, that's just crazy talk. I write here sometimes about hypothetical futures based on historical precedent. History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

Anonymous said...

Wanting to disarm negros seems like a rational response given their crime rate. Ineffective but rational


Anonymous said...

Gun control in Illinois is basically always a distraction. Its not politically correct to talk about what demographic group commits crime, but in chicago whites are 30% of the population and commit 5% of the murders, you do the math. And none of our worthless leaders can address anything beyond making a simple minded mantra, that frankly most people find completely stupid. Except for the scared effite white liberals who are really not scared of Downstate Clem with his SKS, but scared witless of the black thugs that terrorize certain neighborhoods 100% of the time and others as conditions permit.

So all in all the Left ironically is reselling the Southerners' rhetoric from 1870. Its a fine kettle of fish because Cook county hardly goes after guns, since basically the black political structure in Cook county uses street gangs as its foot soldiers and takes its cut of the drug loot. (yes of course you doubt this, but Jesse Jackson had a presser calling for the release of Larry Hoover, drug king pin many years ago)

So once we get over the nonsensical waste of time of debating "facts" with the left and come to understand they are guilty and must be held accountable we are just spinning our wheels. robroy

Anonymous said...

Dear AM,

My belated apology for misconstruing the premise of your post.

I came to the wrong conclusion that we’re having a dialogue of a hypothetical insurgency in the U.S., due to the following aspects of your superb post:

- The late talk about banning "military grade weaponry"
- Gun control and its history in America
- “The second amendment has always been our "Sword of Damocles" that has hung over politics in this nation.”
- Disarming populace
- ‘And once the people are "fully disarmed" and you are able to implement your "final solution" to build your utopia, well that is the time for one of those unpossible [sic] insurgencies to happen.’

Once more, I apologize.

That said, thank you for your kind words. The guerilla war vs terrorism is a subject that I find interesting and try to study.