I have noticed recently many cautionary statements about the propriety and effectiveness of armed resistance. The typical statement goes something like this: “That's just what the government wants--an excuse to crack down on us.” I find this attitude disturbing, on two grounds.

The first ground is that it presupposes a sort of hobby insurgency: a weekend of violence, followed by a government crackdown, followed by a horrified retreat on the part of the insurgents, crying, “But we didn't think you were serious!” If it ever comes down to open warfare in this country, it will come as a last resort, and it won't stop until one side or the other is incapable of continuing it. What the government uses as an excuse to do what it already intends to do is its business; our business is stopping it.

My second ground for objection is even wider: this attitude presupposes, first, a valid political solution; and second, a rejection of our revolutionary heritage. Typically, the argument goes like this: “If you want to make a change, join the NRA and the GOA and work toward commonsense gun policy from the inside.” This may be good advice when we are debating public policy which is understood by all parties to be within the constitutional scope of government; but it is very death when we are discussing unalienable rights. We should never allow the merest suggestion that rights are subject to debate. It is the government's prime function to protect the rights of its contractees--the people. When it fails in that function, the people have the right to void the contract. This truth of our history has been written in blood.

But perhaps there is hope of turning the debate to our favor--and then turning it off? I am afraid not. Between elections, the people's only recourse to Congress is through lobbying. But politicians can afford to ignore lobbyists precisely because lobbyists cannot afford to ignore politicians. When was the last time that any group with a grievance and a lobby in Washington gave up the game and invested their money in the market instead? It doesn't happen; and because politicians know their source of funding is safe, they have no motivation to give in to a position which they see as disadvantageous to them. But perhaps we could make them understand that it is in their best interests to adopt our position? Again, I am afraid not, because politicians know they can afford to ignore any advocacy group whose views can be marginalized. Recent history seems to have demonstrated that gun owners, voting as a block, can tip elections; it has demonstrated even more conclusively that the American public loathes the political margins. And gun owners are being marginalized, in much the same way that smokers have been. Is this a political mistake? You bet--a potentially lethal one. But try explaining that to a congressman.

But there remains an even more cogent argument: there exists, at the highest levels of the political establishment, a conspiracy against freedom. An honest assessment of the last forty years (at least), through both Democratic and Republican majorities, bears this out. The trend has been steadily away from freedom and toward total gun confiscation. That trend is no accident; it is their deliberate agenda, and it won't stop unless we stop it. Slowing it down, by compromise, is worse than useless, because it makes us an active party to our own betrayal. It must be opposed, resolutely and TOTALLY, and we must be willing to use whatever means necessary. We should indeed seek peaceful solutions whenever practically possible; but we cannot afford to shy away from force. The day the American people are no longer, under any circumstances, willing to use force to defend their freedom, is the day freedom in America is buried.

The question, then, becomes: “What are the chances that a peaceful, political solution can be found?” My own belief is that the answer is “Zero.” Not because I have no faith in the American people (I have little), or because I have no respect for the political process (I have much), but because those in power have no intention of losing. They are in this game for keeps; it's time for us to get into it as well--and raise the stakes. It's time to draw a line in the sand--way the hell back where we came from--and say, “This line was not to be crossed; we are going back. We will no longer obey any unconstitutional laws, and any attempt to enforce them will be opposed by whatever means necessary. This is your only warning.” Then we must follow through on it, or we must study the love of slavery--and begin preparing excuses to give our children.

“Every so often God chooses a generation to be tested. My generation has been chosen. I am honored.”

It is a fairly well-understood principle that timing affects moral culpability. If someone makes a credible and immediate threat upon your life, you are justified in shooting him then and there. You are not justified, having talked him out of it and bought him a beer, in killing him from ambush the next day. The effect is the same--one bad guy in a pine box--but conscience takes a dimmer view of the latter.

When is it justifiable to rebel against “lawfully constituted authority?” This is often (but not often enough) asked in an attempt to establish the leading edge of justifiability; but what is almost never asked is, when is it no longer justifiable? Or to put it a better way, when do we ourselves become criminally complicit in our own repression, and can no longer claim a valid grievance? I ask this question now because America is in dire danger of crossing over into open complicity.

The first, most obvious aspect of the answer is this: once revolution is justified, it becomes less and less justifiable the longer it is put off. There must come a point at which justification shrinks to meaninglessness; and it is important to establish that point. But it is important first to understand that delay amounts to a tacit endorsement of the policies which would otherwise justify the rebellion. This is the course which modern America is embarked upon. Nearly all the problems which beset our nation--crime, drugs, broken families, uncontrolled litigation, and all the repressive measures taken to combat them--represent a failure of nerve on a massive scale. There has been a tacit agreement made between Americans and their government, between generations, between races: give me prosperity and comfort, and then do whatever you will. Wreck your life; sue my neighbor; burn down churches and blow up day care centers; I won't complain, so long as you don't interrupt my nap. To many Americans, the idea of risking their fortunes for freedom is repellent; the idea of sacrificing their lives is unthinkable; and the idea of pledging their sacred honor to the furtherance of any endeavor is an idea so archaic and downright peculiar that they can barely frame the thought. Under these circumstances, revolution is no more justifiable than shooting someone because he wouldn't pass the salt.

This leads to a less obvious aspect of the answer to our question: that revolution is something that must be lived up to. It is justified whenever the government cannot live up to the moral level of the people, and never at any other time. A people more degraded than its government deserves chains; a government which offers nothing better than chains deserves fire and steel. Which situation exists in America today?

I said above that our agreement of mutual degradation was tacit; it has not been stated openly, nor openly agreed to. Many good, though unthinking, people would cringe if they were made to know the nature of the bargain they have struck. We wear soft chains, and love them for their softness; but do not yet recognize them as chains. The day we begin to love them as chains will be the day that revolution becomes a privilege past earning. That day is coming; it is already in sight; and all we have to forestall it is our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

“Every so often God chooses a generation to be tested. My generation has been chosen. I am honored.”

There is a specter haunting America: the specter of civil war. The subject which once was nimbly danced around is now discussed openly: whether or not it is right, proper--even advisable--to oppose the government of the United States, by force of arms, from within. What many do not realize is that federal law makes us felons for even bringing up the subject.

Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 115, Section 2385, prescribes a sentence of twenty years for “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States....” Note this carefully: if you “advocate” the “propriety” of insurrection--in other words, if you say so much as, “When they come for my guns I'll give them up lead first”--you may be charged with a federal felony. Whether or not you are guilty remains an unanswered question; but a question which usually escapes unasked is this: just who is it that is attempting an overthrow here? Is it the person making a conditional statement as an expression of his outraged rights--or is it those who have gained political control of the state, for the purpose of committing such outrages?

Ask yourself this first: what IS the government of the United States? The answer, fortunately, is “in the back of the book”: the Constitution authorizes not merely the function, but the very existence, of every aspect of government on the federal level. No agency; no office; no law, which does not ultimately derive its existence from the Constitution, has any validity whatsoever. Similarly, every law which attempts to circumvent the Constitution represents an attempt to overthrow the government; and every government official, elected or appointed, who seeks to take upon himself, and exercise, authority which the Constitution does not delegate to him, is guilty of sedition. At present, that pretty much includes the totality of the administration, of Congress, of the judiciary, of both major parties, and of the majority of political advocacy groups.

The only conclusion to be drawn from this is a sobering one: that there already exists in this country a seditious conspiracy; a widespread, well-disciplined, well-funded, ruthless and--so far--successful attempt to overthrow the lawful, constitutional government of our country. The weapon it uses is the coercive machinery of the state--in other words, violence. We few who recognize this truth must oppose the attempt, by whatever means necessary--even force. To do so would represent not the violent overthrow of the government, but its violent preservation. Surely this is nothing more than civic duty?

“Every so often God chooses a generation to be tested. My generation has been chosen. I am honored.”

It is a widely-held belief that statists are patient, clever people, who realize the impossibility of radical change occuring quickly; and conversely, that conservatives are foolishly impatient, demanding that things be set right quickly, now, once and for all. But nothing could be further from the truth. Conservatives, by their very nature, abhor change. They are willing to put up with a great deal of legislative and judicial mischief before accepting the need for radical action. They are, in fact, willing to accept and defend each statist victory as a new definition of the status quo (how many times have you heard wistful variations on “you can't turn back the clock” coming from conservatives?).

Statists (“liberals”), on the other hand, are by their nature impatient, intolerant people, willing to throw away centuries of social wisdom and replace it with vaguely scientific-sounding, “progressive” ideas. They want change now, totally, and are unwilling to accept anything less. This is why they keep coming back for more after every compromise. In truth, they do not “chip away” so much as they push relentlessly at every point along the front, and every one of their small “victories” is in reality nothing more than a backward step by the conservatives. This is what passes for “incrementalism”--and it exists as a phenomenon only because conservatives almost never push back.

How, then, to explain such things as the infamous HCI timetable? Simply put, it is exactly that--a timetable. It describes the expected changes in gun laws, when they can be expected to occur, and in what order. But notice that when it was made known to the public it was already a finished document. HCI was responsible for its small part in the overthrow of the Constitution, and its timetable was already complete. The threat --ultimate confiscation of all private arms--already exists.

Similarly, Bill Clinton was quoted before his election advising statists to imagine the country as they would like it to be sixty years from now, and then work backwards from there. But the very first thing he attempted to do upon becoming President was to nationalize the entire health care industry--hardly the action of a gradualist. Had he won (and for a time it seemed he would), you can be sure the statists would have lost little time digesting their meal before wanting to be fed again.

What can be done to counter statism? First of all, understand it: our enemies want it all, now. Every small push along the front is part of the big push. We must, therefore, push back. We must not confine ourselves to either purely defensive actions, or even to incrementalism of our own (i.e. lobbying for concealed carry laws, which do nothing but enshrine the notion that statutory permission is necessary for the exercise of natural rights). We must abandon conservatism and learn to become radical; to demand an immediate return to Constitutional principles of governance. We must demand the restoration of every right that has been compromised by the statists--the right to own military weapons, the right to be free from unlawful search or seizure, the right to speak our minds without fear of state retaliation, the right to practice our faiths free from interference, the right to use our property as we see fit.

We cannot expect to win overnight; but we must not accept anything less, or less is surely what we will receive.