'Later' May Be Too Late
Hat-tip to to Chris Horton, whose blog we've added to our roll, for pointing us towards this terrific essay:
'Later' May Be Too Late
by Tim Case
"Go home and tell your master he has sent you on a fool’s errand and broken the peace of our Sabbath. What, do you think we were born in the woods, to be frightened by owls?"
~ Sarah Tarrant (1775)
Sarah Tarrant shouted these words to 240 British troops of the 64th Foot Regiment under the command of Colonel Alexander Leslie as they left Salem, Massachusetts in February 1775 after failing to confiscate cannon and munitions which had been stored in Salem by American rebels.
Her caustic words struck a chord because one angered British troop raised his weapon and took aim at Sarah Tarrant. Ms. Tarrant stood her ground and angrily retorted: "Fire, if you have the courage – but I doubt it!"
It was a sad state of affairs that would bring men and women of the revolutionary war period to display such exemplary fortitude. However, their defiance and anger was the result of years of British "abuses and usurpations" designed to "reduce them under absolute despotism" as the Declaration of Independence a year later would assert.
What concerned the people most, in early 1775, was that the British King, through General Thomas Gage, was attempting to disarm the American colonists and this was going to be resisted at all costs.
In many ways it is easy to empathize if not identify with our forefathers because like them we are increasingly subjected to government oversight, regulation, taxation, and continual loss of our privacy.
Now, with the Supreme Court "looking into" the question of the Second Amendment, Americans are once again faced with the real problem of what response will be appropriate to any threat of being disarmed by a government out of control.
The very idea that there is a question, as to the meaning of the Second Amendment or how it should be applied, now being "debated" by the Supreme Court is absurd. It only accentuates the mental illness and moral vacuum that exists at the highest levels of government while exposing our humanoid politicians as pusillanimous imitators of Fidel Castro.
What next? Are we to be forced to consume a daily diet of triumphalist slogans, embellished by groveling, imbecilic praise for the president?
If we believe that the Declaration of Independence is correct and we are "endowed" with "unalienable" rights, including the Second Amendment, then those rights come from a source beyond and superior to the state and as such can only be relinquished to the state by our own craven acts of mental and physical capitulation.
Now, before anyone gets on their high horse and writes me concerning how we are a "nation of laws," let’s get one thing straight. When the sapient knowledge contained in the highest law of the land (US Constitution) is open to debate, redefining, ignoring, or misuse at all levels of government then don’t tell me that the maniacal fiats that pass for law issued by nefarious bureaucratic megalomaniacs, makes us a nation of laws.
In the last months we have read time and time again how a new "revolution" has begun. This revolution, I believe, is correctly defined by Butler Shaffer as being "devoted to peace, liberty, and free markets" and it has proven to encompass a rather large spectrum of American culture. More importantly Mr. Shaffer points out; this "movement" is lead by those under forty who are "self-organizing, self-directed people taking orders from no one in a political hierarchy..."
Do you think this fact has been lost on the power elite? If it hasn’t, what do you think the power structure’s next move must be?
When faced with much the same dilemma in 1775 King George wrote the Earl of Sandwich on July 1:
"I am of the opinion that when once these rebels have felt a smart blow they will submit; and no situation can ever change my fixed resolution, either to bring the colonies to a due obedience to the legislature of the mother country or to cast them off!"
I have been wondering lately if King George’s sentiments aren’t precisely why the privileged cabal, under the guise of the Supreme Court, is now taking up the question of the Second Amendment.
Is anyone so duped as to believe that a state, like the US government, which is committed to a police-state structure, mass murder, torture, illegal imprisonment, foreign wars, and the annihilation of world economies, foremost being our own, is going to roll over and acquiesce to a social order of peace, liberty, and free markets?
If so, they are expecting what has never occurred in the history of man. Political power feeds the elite’s greed. This gluttony thrives at the expense of our personal freedoms and their human decency. The recent events surrounding the bailout of Bear Stearns should have made this perfectly clear.
As the economy has worsened there has been an interesting event occurring under much of the media’s radar. That is, that weapon sales are increasing. It seems that for the moment some are thinking outside the box and preparing for the worst.
The events of 1775 are in many ways analogous to our situation today. Anyone who has been in combat, been shot at, or had friends die due to hostile fire prays they will never have to face that chaos again, especially in their home country, by having to take up arms against their own.
While peace is always preferable, reality says armed conflict cannot always be avoided; especially when the state participates in secret state agreements, or due to deteriorating economies which would produce food riots. Then there is the real threat of domestic martial law resulting from an angry world which will increasingly seek retribution for the unmitigated disasters perpetuated by the US government’s vile activities, laughingly called "foreign policy."
In the wake of Lexington and Concord a woman whose name has been lost to history wrote a British officer she deemed a friend concerning the American rebel’s preparedness for conflict:
"All ranks of men amongst us are in arms. Nothing is heard now in our streets but the trumpet and the drum; and the universal cry is ‘Americans, to arms!’ We are making powder fast and do not want for ammunition… The God of mercy will, I hope, open the eyes of our king that he may see, while in seeking our destruction, he will go near to complete his own."
I echo the lady’s closing sentiments; as do many others, I am sure. However, they cannot be realized without an unwavering commitment to freedom and preparation for conflict.
Before you write these thoughts off as too radical, consider these questions. Why hasn’t the Federal government through its alphabet agencies shut down and arrested the various criminal gangs operating in this country? Could it possibly be because of the allegiance each member has to the gang coupled with the gang’s commitment and ability to resist with extreme force?
Every revolutionary family had personal weapons in 1775. This didn’t concern the British as much as their growing supply of munitions, which included cannons. It is the supply of munitions that allow for a protracted conflict; a weapon without ammunition is an expensive club, at best.
During the years I was involved in the firearms industry I witnessed, more than once, people who would buy a weapon for protection but would rarely purchase any more than a minimal supply of ammunition. I often wondered how they expected to defend themselves when the four major components of defense with a weapon (weapon familiarity, controlled fire, accuracy and self/unit confidence) can only be achieved by repeated practice.
Military officers who have witnessed unit disintegration during combat know exactly what I am talking about. For those who have no first-hand knowledge of that unpleasant event, a study of Custer’s left flank on Calhoun Hill at the Battle of the Little Bighorn will make the point crystal clear.
Indian warrior’s testimony after the battle said that members of the 7th Cavalry "were crying like babies, shooting wildly in the air, feigning death and acting as if they were drunk." A Sioux warrior called Runs-the-Enemy described the flight of troopers from their defensive picket positions as "a buffalo stampede."
The simple fact is that combat in any form is extremely stressful for all involved. It is only because of tough, relevant, prolonged, and progressive training resulting in competence, confidence, and cohesion, which gives one a chance to survive. Anything less spells disaster.
Now, before going any further, understand that there is a huge difference between a personal act of self-defense with a weapon and a protracted campaign as was undertaken during the Revolutionary War or that we may face...
Go read the whole thing.