In 1946, Veterans who had returned from war to their home in Athens, Tennessee, came home to find their county had been taken over by corrupt officials who rigged elections, enacted a scheme that gave cash kick-backs per arrest made and established a corrupt justice system in the county, stacked with crony justices backing the ruling family in the county, the Cantrells. Several GI's ran against the incumbents in the 1946 elections. Many problems ensued at the poles including the shooting of a black man attempting to vote by a deputy. The ballot boxes were ceased by the county officials and deputies called in from surrounding counties and held in the court house. In August 1946, the GI's armed themselves by raiding a National Guard Armory, and gathering their own firearms and materials. The armed townspeople and GI's surrounded the courthouse, requesting that the ballot boxes be brought out and the votes counted publicly. The officials refused and the GI's opened fire and used dynamite to storm the courthouse, cease the ballot boxes and count the votes. This resulted in a win for all 5 GI's who had run for office, including a new Sheriff. The Cantrell family power base was desolved along with all their corrupt operations. This is a prime example of how the 2nd Amendment protects the people against the tyranny of a corrupt government and should be defended on these grounds, not just on the grounds of personal self-defense. I had never heard of this story until today, although a tv movie was made in 1992 regarding the incident. Here is a clip from that movie and a link to the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) What are your thoughts about this event and had you heard of it before today?
I wouldn't recommend such actions in the event you from your post. It only works in remote areas where government troops can't arrive on time. If you try anything like that in a big city, you surely will get SWAT team come after you in a few minutes. Even if you are armed with assault rifles, you will be no match for the government forces simply because you have limited chain of supply, limited ways to spread your side of story. They government can easily tell the mass media to spread "they are domestic terrorists" or "extremists" if they wish. Very few people is going to believe you when the mainstream propaganda is telling them the same thing. Your rifles will do nothing against tanks, attack choppers, long range missiles etc. This is the very reason that very few revolts had actually replaced the regime around the world...without foreign intervention that is. You should check it out what happened to the WWI vets who occupied D.C.
I did not recommend anything but I do think the story illustrates the spirit that the founders had in drafting the 2nd Amendment. It also shows that tyranny can be countered successfully. We didn't have the resources of England but we managed to break free of their tyranny. One should not discount the will of individuals fighting for justice and not incidentally, the rule of law, especially, as in this case, when they were more numerous than the tyrants in power and had the law (not the lawmakers) on their side and acted quickly in a coordinated way. It's not the same thing as a small group seeking pensions or payment or whatever the WWI vets "occupying" D.C. were after. As to what rifles can do against the military - it is not clear whether our military would actually fire on their own country-men. I highly doubt that they would follow such "illegal" orders. Also, "sides" of stories are irrelevant. There is reality and then there is everything else. People are not stupid. Looking at the tyrants holding power even in the small towns of the world, I would say that in many places the people would be better off to rise up against them instead of cowering in poverty to the all-powerful state. Our founders intended that we have that power because they had lived through tyranny and knew that it must be fought or else the people would live in slavery.
What about Kent State University shooting of students protesting Vietnam War? Also in the events I mentioned in my previous post, there were a few WWI vets shot to death. No one in the world believes their own country's army would fire on them until the bullets are flying. "Our soldiers won't fire on us"? Sorry, it is nothing but propaganda itself. It is easy to make soldiers follow the orders. Just tell them those are terrorists, and they will fire with pleasure like they always do. Of course the "side of the story" is important. Media propaganda has always controlled majority of the general "opinion" despite the fact most people believe it is their own "opinion"...they don't have a clue of what is really going on. If the mainstream propaganda says there is a terrorist group trying to overthrow an ally government, most people would support to intervene. ex: Mali right now. If the mainstream propaganda says a tyrant is trying to crack down on his own people with bullets, then the majority of the public opinion would be they should support the revolt. ex: Libya, Syria, etc. The mainstream propaganda said Saddam was an ally, then everyone supported him in the war against Iran. When the mainstream propaganda said Saddam is an evil tyrant who has WMD ready to fire at them, (70% Americans) supported to remove him. I have seen it countless times. Public "opinion" doesn't exist. It is always manipulated because there is no easy way for the general public to get the real information first hand. They relay on the mainstream propaganda and they actually trust them.
Police and National Guard will definitely fight the citizens. I don't think the regular military troops will. Time will tell. When did the US fight a war with Iran? I know we supported Saddam in Iraq's war against Iran and also we armed the Taliban when the Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan. None of which was done with the approval of the general public nor did the mainstream propaganda over here support any of those "wars" or the current one's and none of it had to do with American soldiers firing on their brothers. You have to go back to the Civil War to see that and the fighters were very motivated on both sides during that was because it was a fight for justice. Again, time will tell if that will ever happen again. I am doubtful.
How do those military soldiers know it is the regular citizens down there? If they were given order to drop a bomb on a building "occupied by terrorists"? That's what they would be told if it is the case. You think their commander would tell them "We are going to drop a bomb on some innocent citizens"? It's not going to happen that way. Do you think the soldiers would refuse the order? Or even ask for proof first? Not going to happen. If someone took arm against the government, you can bet soon he would be cornered inside either his house or in another building with SWAT team armed to teeth ready to snipe him between eyes...and all the news media would say a terrorist or a wanted murder is cornered...then everyone who is following the "news" would be cheering to have the "terrorist" get shot. That's how everyone will learn about the "truth". No, the U.S. did not directly fight a war against Iran. But Iranian democratically elected president was overthrown by CIA in 1953 and a KING was put in his place. During the tyranny rule of Shah, Iran was a U.S. ally because majority Iranian oil were under the contract of American oil companies. When Iranians overthrew Shah and took back their own oil, they sudden became an enemy. Most Americans today also hate Iran because the media told them so... and believing the "longest hostage situation in human history" was the root cause for everything... Those were just some examples how everyone can be easily manipulated by media propaganda. I don't believe for a moment those "free" press are truly free. They definitely have some kind of contract one way or another to follow a certain way of "reporting". Yes, these examples have everything to do with how troops will react to domestic events. They can be manipulated to do whatever orders they receive oversea, why do you think they can't be manipulated to do whatever orders they receive here? And nope, citizens don't stand a chance against a government without foreign intervention...or a military coup. It has always been that way throughout the history around the world. Very very few regime changes were actually caused by the true citizen revolt. It's always either a coup or a foreign intervention. In modern time, when the weapon systems have become more complex, and the supply chain also become more complex, regular citizens ex military or not...stand even less chance against the government than ever.
Because our military is barred from action within our borders. The troops, since Vietnam, if not before, are held personally and legally responsible to responding to "illegal" orders from their officers. I've already said that (some of) the National Guard and Police WILL fire on citizens, but I still maintain that the troops will NOT. We won't know until another Civil War happens, if ever. A couple of other points: The mainstream media here does not "cheer" when a terrorist is killed, they cry, for they are the enemy of the American people themselves. Also, it would not be "someone" who would take up arms against tyranny but rather several states acting together in a coordinated attack that may well have some international assistance. Or, it could be just like the story above: a small town, fighting a known corrupt political machine. Yes, it would have to be quick, but look at how long it takes the Obama administration, for example, to even decide and agree in committee about what is occuring? You think our Government is "Johnny on the Spot?" No, the military is being run by pacifists and bureaucrats whose impetus is NOT to respond but instead, delay and analyze the political spin. That we broke free from Britain and that the brave GI's above acted as they did, is proof that liberty can be fought for and won. You can continue to believe otherwise. You have every right to your opinion. But, I disagree.
Lets say during plane hijacks, were those air force jets dispatched to intercept always belong to the National Guard? The pilots could be easily told "terrorists had just hijacked the plane and it's going to ram a building". They will shoot it down as they are ordered. No question asked. It is not up to them to decide. What if it is someone on the plane the government wants to get rid of? You get the picture. I am not saying it's already happened or will definitely happen. Just giving an scenario to think about if you believe the pilots of the fighter jets would refuse to follow the order of shooting down a commercial airline. There are many ways to get the troops to fire on the civilians. The troops doesn't have to know what's really going on, and unlikely they will know at the beginning at least. As for take up arms against corrupted officials. I am sure even if the cause is right (lets say some officials are indeed corrupted and need to be arrested), I don't think the government would encourage citizens to take up arms to deal with it themselves. Before the government can determine if an official is corrupted, the official can call on reinforcement "there is an armed riot"... how do you think the government will respond? Help the official or help the "riot"?
Well, "the government" does not "encourage" citizens to take up arms, but The Constitution does legally back the citizen's right to do so. And, for good reason, historically speaking. The Federal "government" would love to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but their constituents stand in the way and they most definitely want to be re-elected. As to all the scenarios you suggest, when the first US citizen is gunned down by the military, under orders and in the United States, then we can discuss it further. Since the My Lai Massacre in '68, ignorance of the law is not an excuse for any of the troops and they know it, very well, as it is part of basic training in all the branches. They do not just "follow orders."
Ok, you want a real event of citizen being gunned down. Here you go... There was a ex-marine gunned down in his own home not so long ago. It was in the news. His wife told him there were some masked dudes outside the window, and he took up his own assault rifle. That's when the SWAT team broke down the door and fired hundreds bullets at him. His own gun had the safety on and it was never fired. source news: http://abcnews.go.com/US/tucson-swat-team-defends-shooting-iraq-marine-veteran/story?id=13640112
A SWAT team is the police, silly! Trust me, you will not find a US military action on American soil since the Civil War. It is illegal! The police SWAT teams gun down criminals all the time, which is as it should be and not relevant to the topic. Good try, but...fail!
It was just an example that the government can gun down someone as they wish. Why send in the military when police can do it already? Aren't both military and the police under the control of the government? You still haven't answered my question if you are sure of the jets being dispatched to intercept the hijacked planes were from national guards instead of other branch of the military. It really made no difference which branch of the armed units under the government was used... the point is that the government is willing to gun down the citizens. Not to mention the legalization of the assassination of American citizens. As long as that particular person is labeled as a "terrorist" by the government.
I don't know anything about jets being dispatched. I am not sure if the National Guard has any jets, but I know, thanks to Obama, they will soon have drones to spy on citizens. I am FOR the rule of law, in case that is in question. And, it DOES matter, legally, what kind of troops are dispatched and by whom. When officials cross the line and become tyrannical despots, it is a citizen's duty to resist. Just like it is every troop's responsibility to NOT obey an illegal order from his superiors. That is my opinion, and I think it was the Founder's intent.
I totally agree that the governments should always be checked by the citizens. However, the governments are all getting smarter on how to manipulate its citizens. Through the brainwash of mass media propaganda, many citizens are literally drones and blindly support many "not so good" things the governments do. I also found it is unlikely that the government would be willing to let the people go without punishment if another incident like in Tennessee happen again.
I have learned that if the President and Congress both agree, the military can be used in country legally due to the Insurrection Act. The thing is, Congress is pretty accountable to the voters and I don't think we will see it happen any time soon. Personally, I don't think the American people would be willing to let the government go without punishment, if it dared to attempt to use our own sons against us.
No,the police and military would not turn on the citizens.Remember that Oklahoma NG battalion commander who was ordered to confisccate arms after Katrina?He took his guys and went home.
"The mainstream media here does not "cheer" when a terrorist is killed, they cry, for they are the enemy of the American people themselves." No they don't.And look how dissappointed Chris Mathews was when the terrorists in Boston turned out NOT to be TEA Party members.
"As to all the scenarios you suggest, when the first US citizen is gunned down by the military, under orders and in the United States, then we can discuss it further." Does Waco ring a bell?
"Trust me, you will not find a US military action on American soil since the Civil War" The Indian wars,Militia units mobilized against urban rioters in the late 19th century,militia units mobilized against coal miners,federal troops mobilized against the Bonus Marchers,military units rounding up 110,000 US citizens for internment in detention camps during WW2,national guard units mobilized against farmers during the milk wars of the great depression,Wounded Knee,Waco-need I continue?
"Not to mention the legalization of the assassination of American citizens. As long as that particular person is labeled as a "terrorist" by the government." But the Fort Hood terrorist attack was merely "workplace violence"
