The Looming Specter of Armed Rebellion in America

Writing an op-ed article for The Union, Greg Littell has claimed that armed resistance against a tyrannical US government is pointless.

Assuming the military was part of the tyranny (which it would have to be for tyranny to have any meaning), any rebelling national band of “patriots” would be told something like, “you either lay down your arms or the entire city of Dallas, Texas will disappear. You have one hour. If you continue, the next city to disappear will be Atlanta, Georgia.”

The only thing that would work to thwart a tyrannical takeover of the government, as Ghandi demonstrated, is massive civil disobedience. Freeze up the operation of everything, including the daily activities of the tyrants.

Another aspect to consider is that one man’s tyrant might be another man’s patriot. Maybe that original hearty band of patriots is openly and violently demanding something that a sizable band of opposing patriots approves.

Now you’ve got civil war, a condition that, if allowed to spread, would destroy the U.S. and its critical role in world order.

Source: The Union

Greg Littell paints an outlandish picture of the course of an American revolution. David Codrea, writing his own opinions against Mr. Littell’s scenario, believes Littell’s scenario is beyond the pail and offers this counterpoint:

“The idea of ‘armed rebellion’ in the U.S. is ludicrous,” opinion column writer Gregg Littell declares in The Union.

His stated intent is to debunk Ben Carson’s claim that “America will never suffer under tyranny because the people are armed.”

The reason, according to “gun owner and target shooter” Littell, is because unlike in Revolutionary War times, “the arms disparity between a ‘tyrannical government’ and citizens is so huge that the idea of ‘armed rebellion’ is ludicrous.”

He keeps using that word.  After reading the rest of his insane rant, an Inigo Montoya line comes to mind. Because in the past, when subjected to “Resistance is futile” Borg declarations from “progressive” keyboard commandos pointing out the government, after all, has nukes, I’ve noted none of them ever seem to go beyond that platitude and flesh out the full scenario for us.

…

No, Littell pontificates, the only thing that will save us from such ruthless tyranny would be to employ Gandhi’s tactics, as if totalitarians who would wipe out city after city in order to bend all to their will would suddenly be thwarted by peaceful refusals to report to work. That not only brings to mind Gandhi’s sentiments on government depriving people of arms, but also evokes a truism from colleague Mike Vanderboegh on his Sipsey Street Irregulars blog:

Had the Japanese got as far as India, Gandhi’s theories of “passive resistance” would have floated down the Ganges River with his bayoneted, beheaded carcass.

Still, Littell went to the trouble of outlining his “final solution” (how come those always seem, to involve mass exterminations?), so instead of just dismissing it outright, why not examine it?

I don’t know what makes him think the hotbed of militia activity is either Dallas or Atlanta. It seems the nuanced decentralized and distributed nature of modern resistance options vs. infantry squares escapes him, but if he thinks he’s going to wipe out opposition by vaporizing cities that respectively voted overwhelmingly for Obama and that both belong to Bloomberg’s Mayors Against (Your) Guns, he may want to reexamine his premises.

Source: Ammoland

The course of a second American Revolution against a tyranny is difficult to predict, however it is considered. What is true is that the federal government is armed with an array of weapons not available to the private citizen. This being the case, how would a militia composed of patriots still loyal to the American ideal counter the strategies of this despotic regime? Tell us your thoughts in the comments section.

Photo: SHTFJournal