Anybody had the guts yet to hurl a few of these?

How can one reasonably claim to be a “deterrent” when one’s opponents don’t even know you exist?

And finally, read this account of “constituent representation” and ask yourself why there were any windows left for “banging”, per the gutless Congresswoman’s subsequent apology?

Sic semper tyrannis.

7 responses to “>Questions

  1. >"Never wound the king."See, there's a problem here, a dilemma. Your strategy (and VdB's) is one of attempted deterrence: make a lot of noise and show, and by this demonstration convince the enemy that an engagement is too risky, causing them to veer off. This works under one particular condition: that the enemy be weak enough, or judge you strong enough, that in his judgement a fight is not worth the risk. But if that condition is false? If the enemy considers himself strong enough, or views you and your agitating with a sort of contemptuous disdain, then noisy agitation has a different result: it exposes you prematurely to the enemy and makes you a target without causing any real damage or deterrence at all. It's an active harm to you, a very real danger, as opposed to potential and unclear benefit. Most people, balancing the tradeoffs there, will err on the side of caution until more information is available. Or, to put it another way, given the potential value of discomfort caused by thrown rocks versus the certain value of still being free and out of jail and able to respond to events, freedom of maneuver weighs rather heavier.There is some indication that deterrence did have some effect under Clinton. But Clinton and Congress were both saner, there was a lot more organizational resistance that has since been dismantled, and things in general have progressed much farther since.You commented, the other day, that "anybody who reads this site is already on lists". Maybe. I happen to think they're not that efficient or proactive, yet. If they have advanced to the point of being that efficient, then demonstrations of the sort you are advocating are hardly going to be enough to cause them to change course.The bottom line here is that the enemy is not a foreign occupying army. It is well-meaning neighbors who continually vote for and pay for and support the systems and procedures that are strangling this civilization. Unless you are ready and willing to go to war with those people – with the neighbors, with the fellow civilians who approve and implement the very thing that is destroying them – forceful behavior of any sort is a dead end. Not to mention a really good excuse for them to toss you in jail.So: no. I'm not a useless big mouth, I don't pick fights I can't win, and I don't throw rocks just to make noise. I don't wound the king.

  2. >Anon:IMHO, deterrence was never created, at least since the Clinton/Reno aftermath of Waco (and even there, I am not convinced that their reluctance was not based solely on polling data, rather than RKBA sabre-rattling).My fundamental organizing principle has been and remains:1) We're screwed.2) There's gonna be a fight.3) Let's win.My experience has been that people need to acclimate themselves to smaller risks before bigger risks can be considered as possible.The smallest possible risk is to attend discussions such as this one from the comfort of one's broadband connection.Success in the larger endeavor, however, will require more courage than that. And while I do not know you personally, I am always dubious of folks who claim that they plan to stay covert until Der Tag — then and only then will they rise to the occasion.Good luck with that.Thanks for your comments; you correctly identify our fellow so-called "Americans" as the biggest obstacle to be overcome.

  3. >If the colonists had followed "Never wound the king." rule, there would have been no Boston Tea Party.The leaders have ignored us. Votes, calls, e-mails, and mass protests have yielded nothing.And the 'TEA Parties'? They were lame peaceful protests with no teeth. There was no convincing 'or else' presented at these protests.Vote them out? And replace them with who, Republicans? Yeah…good luck with that.We can't escalate this from where we are now straight to battle with bullets and bombs, that would be the McVeigh strategy.What we can do is send them the signal that we are no longer law-abiding citizens. It's a warning shot across the tyrant(s)'s bow.They they will know that there really is an 'or else' coming of this doesn't stop and reverse course.And if they go crazy and crack down on the people after the rocks are thrown? Great. Then the rest of our fellow citizens can see these creeps for who they really are.

  4. >Anon, One other thing to think about if you haven't. Many people have moved further "off grid" and HAVE literally started what we speak of here and at other places.Just because you don't read or hear about it doesn't mean it ain't happening.Just sayin'…. CIII

  5. >Anonymous suggests that 'well meaning neighbors…unless we are willing to go to war with these people' is the 'war' in a nutshell, IMO. So, to answer him, allow me to say, "Yes, I am ready. Who the hell else is going to be helping to defend the shit coming out of DC and the Dark Lord's mouth?"This coming war is going to be neighbor against neighbor, a war between fathers and sons, neighbors, mothers and daughters- there is no way around it. Unless we are willing to fight those people for the Consitution, the country and our American Way- and I will include God in this as well- then we are not ready to fight any kind of revolution to get this country back where it belongs.A commie is a commie, my enemy does not become my friend just because we shake hands and pretend to be neighborly.Shy III

  6. >I've been looking for the article you had on the ring of lights around the hat to defeat the security cameras and can't find it.I'd have to have one before I start tossing rocks. Damn cameras are everywhere now a days.If you could get me a link I'd appreciate it. Thanks.