Outline of Contents:

WHEN IS IT TIME TO START SHOOTING? --main essay, from http://www.comeandtakeit.com . I would certainly like to hear from people in law enforcement and military.

Possible Confrontations
Past Confrontations
Common Themes Of Confrontations
Preparing For Confrontations

1. Know The Truth
2. Develop Key Allies
3. Meet People On Their Level
4. Bring Along The Population
5. Keep Your Eyes Open And Your Mind Sharp
6. Know Your Friends, And Know How To Communicate With Them
7. Inform The Masses
8. Defend
9. Those In Power Should Speak Out And Stand Up


Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

The Branch Davidians.
Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris
Boston Massacre.
The Disarming of Boston.
Lexington Green.
Gonzales, Texas 1835
Joe Gray.
Indianapolis Baptist Temple
Road Blocks.
The Police Officer Accused Of Raping A Woman.
California Gun Confiscation, House To House Searches, .50 BMGBuyback/Confiscation, Class III Confiscation

Appendix IV

Non-lethal defenses
Does an armed populace guarantee liberty?
When is it time to STOP shooting?
"Tax Protesting"
A Few Biblical Reasons Why We Should Not Flee To Another Country To Escape The Coming Confrontations.

by David C. Treibs (sirdavid@ktc.com) please read it and send me your feedback!

If present trends continue, it seems inevitable that a violent confrontation of some sort will occur between those enforcing gun control, verses those refusing to be disarmed. It may be that the election of George Bush will retard those trends, but probably only for a few years, if any. With the "War On Terrorism, (ie, the War To Eliminate The Last Vestiges Of Constitutional Liberty)" it might happen even sooner.

A few confrontations have already happened, or are happening now. The Branch Davidians were hunkered down in Waco for 51 days after being attacked. Randy Weaver was likewise surrounded. Joe Gray sits in his home awaiting imminent attack.

Others can be predicted.

Possible Confrontations

Living in California, you failed to surrender your SKS or other assault rifle during the grace period, and now police are knocking on your door to arrest you and confiscate your weapon.

In a high-crime, government housing project, police are going door to door without a warrant, searching for weapons, and arresting anyone found with arms. You have a weapon in your apartment.

DPS is conducting a roadblock to pull over and search every second or third vehicle for anything illegal. You are carrying a handgun without a concealed carry permit, and your vehicle is pulled over. Canines are ready to sniff the cars of anyone refusing to allow his car to be searched, guaranteeing a hit, which will be interpreted as probable cause to forcibly search you and your car.

Several years ago you purchased and assembled a .50 BMG Maadi-Griffin kit gun. Bob Stewart, owner of the company lost his court case: the government found that the kits were weapons. Having your info from Bob Stewart's files, BATF sent you a letter demanding you register your weapon, or surrender it without compensation, which you refused to do, and now you have multiple class A felonies against you. BATF will be in your neighborhood within a few days.

Charles Schumer teams with George Bush after a highly publicized shooting, to revoke the licenses of all Class III firearms. Your neighbor owns one, but says he will not comply, on Second Amendment grounds.

On a major spending bill that must pass to keep the government from shutting down, Congress piggy-backs a bill requiring that all firearms be registered, on pain of felony charges. You never noted gun registration as being one of the enumerated powers of Congress, and so you refuse.

A terrorist threat has been received, and the military has been called out to set up roadblocks to search all vehicles for the terrorists and anything illegal, and weapons of any sort. You are carrying a rifle in your truck as you make your way to the farm.

You hear that a local activist is surrounded by law enforcement. They say he is holed up in a "compound," and is speaking irrationally on the phone. He is alleged to have .50 cal machine guns, surface to air missiles, biological and chemical weapons, high explosives, and may be manufacturing drugs and abusing children. Roads are blocked off, and you note several armored personnel carriers brought in on trucks.

The President signs an agreement with the Organization of American States under the umbrella of the UN that calls for drastic new gun control, to be implemented by local police, augmented by federal agencies, the National Guard, and the military, as necessary. You are a deputy with the police. What will you do?

A new law allows you to have only 10 firearms before you are required to register as having an "arsenal," and you have over 10, but refuse to comply. BATF is illegally using yellow sheets (Form 4473) to find those who have over 10, and all your purchases were made on 4473s. They will visit you soon, warrant in hand.

If not partly true, most of the above scenarios are fairly realistic and possible, based on current law, or current trends. The scenarios amount to a confrontation between those who will disarm the populace, and those who refuse to be disarmed. The more we see these confrontations arising, the more people will ask: how should we respond? Or, as Claire Wolf's article is titled, "When Is It Time to Shoot the [So-and-Sos]?"

Responses range from: shoot 'em all and then some, to: I don't know. Following is my effort to approach the matter from a historical, Constitutional, Biblical, and common sense approach. I'm hoping that an open discussion will keep many on our side from making major mistakes; and will give us a better chance at winning, should more confrontations occur. I hope that the end result of this essay is a set of principles which will guide our responses as anti-Second Amendment activities increase.

Obviously, very obviously, the first response is court action, injunctions, and such; and the second response is legislative--you change the law. This paper addresses what we should consider when all appeals and peaceful courses of action have been thoroughly and completely exhausted.

Past Confrontations

American colonists faced a similar dilemma--an increasingly oppressive and militant government bent on crushing their liberty. The result was a gradual buildup of anti-British sentiment. The Americans endured many years suffering and oppression. Their many petitions fell on deaf ears. They variously suffered the Boston Massacre, the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, conscriptions, plundering, troop quartering, and many other abuses, some of which are catalogued in the Declaration of Independence.

Gradually, the people realized they were under a tyranny, and they felt its sting.

People concluded that armed resistance might be inevitable, and they began preparing: arming, training, setting up lines of communications, spy networks, etc.

The move toward armed resistance took on political embodiment. Committees of Safety sprang up in many places. The Provisional Congress made various preparations. These widespread political actions belies a widespread support for armed resistance.

Even the first shots at Lexington and Concord were preceded by a gradual buildup of maneuvers by the British and counter maneuvers by the Americans. On different occasions spanning months, columns of British troops marched out of Boston, and were shadowed by thousands of militia, and the spreading news of the British on the march brought out even more militia. (An absolutely indispensable book is The Minute Men. The First Fight: Myths and Realities of the American Revolution, by John R. Galvin, Brassey's, Inc., 1313 Dolley Madison Blvd., Suite 401, McLean, Va. 22101.)

Similar developments lead to the revolution for Texas independence. Texas was part of Mexico, governed by a federal constitution that had been secured in 1824. Santa Anna ascended to the presidency in Mexico, and gradually began taking the reigns of power into his hands. He ended up as the dictator of Mexico, ignoring the Constitution of 1824. Several states resisted his various moves, and Santa Anna turned the military loose on one of the states, brutally crushing the resistance. None of these moves sat well with Texans, but their inclination was to settle matters peacefully, and those who wanted a war were in the minority. Mexican troops were sent into the state as unrest towards Santa Anna increased, but these troops only further alienated the populace, so that, at some point, the majority saw war as the only recourse. When a number of troops were sent to confiscate a cannon held by the town of Gonzales, the citizens politely declined to surrender the cannon to stall for time, and sent for armed assistance from the surrounding areas. Volunteers responded, and after several days the Texans had a sufficient force to engage the troops. When it became apparent that the troops would not leave without the cannon, the Texans attacked and routed the troops, which retreated to their headquarters in Bexar county. Many of the citizen soldiers then marched to Bexar, to drive the troops out of Texas. Eventually, a number of those from Gonzales ended up in the siege of the Alamo, and paid the price for the liberty we now enjoy. (For more details, see: http://www.comeandtakeit.com )

Common Themes Of Confrontations

In looking back at the American and Texas revolutions began, several common themes emerge.

At first, the majority of the populations favored peacefully settling the differences, but as their petitions fell on deaf ears, and the oppression worsened, the majority gradually began to consider armed resistance as the only recourse. The oppressors' responded, not with an olive branch, but with a mailed fist, further pushing many of the populations to extreme measures. As relations crumbled, the oppressors resorted to disarming the opposition, which finally ignited the revolutions.

What will it take for us to successfully repulse the boots attempting to forever stomp on our faces into the dust (George Orwell)?

If we start with just the basics, it will become evident that we have a long way to go before enough like-minded people are sufficiently prepared to win a confrontation.

Preparing For Confrontations

1. Know The Truth

Understand the principles over which we struggle. It sounds ridiculously basic, but I don't see that most people involved in the struggle have an understanding of what's at stake, and what's right, and what's wrong.

I consider the Bible, and the Constitution (and associated documents) the two foundations of this country, and the foundations of liberty. Without both, we will have no liberty.

Foundational concepts include: God grants rights, and government's role is to secure those rights, including the rights to private property. The Constitution enumerates certain rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. The federal government is granted about 20 enumerated--specifically listed--powers, and may do nothing other than those listed powers, which means 90% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, that is, illegal. Furthermore, (if I understand correctly) the Constitution states that judges must enforce the Constitution, even in states and local governments, meaning that the states also may not infringe on rights enumerated in the Constitution, especially since God has granted those rights. Families, primarily the fathers, are to provide housing and sustenance for their families. Parents are to raise, train, educate, and otherwise equip their children (not government schools or day care centers or self-appointed village idiots). Nobody is supposed to steal, including the government, which it does when it takes money from those who earned it and gives/lends it to those who didn't earn it (Social Security, unemployment, farm loans/grants, welfare, AFDC, Pell grants, small business loans, Medicaid, Medicare, job training, public works projects, etc, etc, etc!!). The people are supposed to be moral (no adultery, bearing of false witness, homosexuality, murder, etc).

Being involved in the Republican Party for more or less 15 years, I found many of the finest people in Texas. Unfortunately, a significant number of them did not understand significant portions of the above mentioned concepts. Perhaps they supported free enterprise capitalism (the economic system of private property and individual entrepreneurship), but thought it was perfectly fine for a mother to kill her baby. Perhaps they knew mothers are not supposed to kill their babies, but were very nervous when it came to Second Amendment issues. Some of them were unfamiliar with the concept of enumerated powers.

Even in the Constitution Party, which I whole-heartedly support, they had a plank in their platform advocating a strong Social Security system. Oops! Social Security is unConstitutional, not to mention unBiblical!

Other fine people, such as some Libertarians, have a keen understanding of the Constitution and economics (a much better grasp, I'm sorry to say, than the average Christian), but do not hold to the Biblical values so necessary to the fabric of society.

Other good people think variously that: we should have faith in our government, President Clinton is an honorable and trustworthy man who deserves our respect, taking government money is OK, you are weird if you support what the Constitution says in plain English, you are weird if you hold to what the Bible says instead of what is faddish, contemporary, and the popularly held view among Christians and Christian culture, you are weird if you actually prepare for crises, faith in God means do nothing and let God do everything to take care of you, God will rescue us out of all troubles, so we don't have to do anything to stop evil from progressing or attacking us, America will always be a free and wonderful country, Christians are not supposed to have any influence on society or culture or government (or else we are too busy, or our families are so busy falling apart that we don't have time to trifle with our nation), preachers are not supposed to address anything covered in this article.

In defining the principles over which we struggle, we may do well to reduce our plank to a few simple unifying principles. Hopefully the previously-mentioned foundational concepts are not so widely disputed that few people will agree to them. I consider them essential to the survival of our liberty, and probably our physical lives as well.

After determining on what we stand, we need to resolve to fight with relentless vehemence, and to never compromise or back down. We can take a cue from the environmentalists: think globally, act locally. You can pound your fists all day over what's happening 3 states away, but if you allow your local school board to jack property taxes through the roof, harass home schoolers, and teach the children the latest environmentalist, multi-cultural, globalist nonsense, what good is all your fist pounding? What good is your membership in Gun Owners of America if you do nothing when the local sheriff enforces the Brady Law, or state police set up check points to catch those "illegally" carrying firearms? (Just remember to be wise; and don't forget your family--they are part of the battle ground.)

From an individual standpoint, you might do well to pick one or two issues to major in, and be in the forefront of those issues. For me, those two issues are abortion and gun control. No abortions occur here in Fredericksburg as far as I know, and I'll do all in my power to see that they never start. Yes, I do have my ear to the ground on this. Whenever I hear that someone is planning an abortion, I do all I can to help them and persuade them, even if costs my job or whatever. As for gun control, I have authored several web sites dealing with the issue, and am working to spread the pro-gun message in the local communities here in the Texas hill country. And, it goes without saying that, as a Christian, I am always obligated to take the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone.

2. Develop Key Allies

Develop allies in government, business, military, law enforcement, the judiciary, etc. Reach out to them before trouble starts. I think personal contact beats sending reams of documents and videos. Sending all that stuff is less stressful than personal contact, but unless they agree with you already, they'll probably write you off as a nut case. Perhaps a phone call, or a simple letter that is friendly in tone. Send them an article in the mail, and then call them and ask them what they think about it. Take it slowly, because once they decide you are a nut, they won't hear anything you have to say.

Find who is for us, and who is against us. DON'T write people off as enemies. This is a BIG mistake I hear a lot. The whole point is to WIN them, and you can't win anyone by hating them, with rudeness or threats, or by accusing them of things, such as being part of some conspiracy or other, or being paid agents, or dupes, or traitors. They are our fellow countrymen, friends, neighbors, relatives. If we write them off as being our enemy, they probably WILL be our enemy!

Remember that you can disagree with someone on lots of major issues, and still work together on some things. Find something that you agree on, and agree to disagree on the rest. We come off sounding like a bunch of nuts when we consign everyone to the conspiracy who does not agree with us on everything. This relationship is particularly true between Christians and Libertarians. We might disagree on a lot, but we also agree on quite a bit. Let's work together as much as possible!

If you can't agree on anything, and they fight you all the way, be nice anyway. They can always change their mind later, especially if you show yourself to be their friend, no matter how wrong they are. Gentlemanly graciousness wins the day, and cuts down on ulcers.

3. Meet People On Their Level

Meet people where they are. For example, if you discuss the materials in this article with the unconvinced, they will think you are nuts, because these things have not yet touched them personally. They see no threats, and feel no pain. The store shelves are full, children play happily in the park, what is this stuff you are telling me? Are you crazy?

4. Bring Along The Population

Pursue a strategy of informing and escalating the anger of the populace to the point that they:

--Understand what the enemy is (preferably not who, but what)

--Feel threatened by the enemy

--Feel the need to do something

--Feel strongly enough to leave their comfort zones.

This is particularly important if and when the real action starts: if enough people don't show up on our side, we'll be squashed like a few noisy bugs.

At this point, the population consists of large percentages of people too busy to do anything unless they feel personally threatened. They believe the media, or in any event, do not believe us, or understand the Bible or the Constitution. They are happily engaged in the pursuit of money, stuff, pleasure, fulfillment, self-gratification, self-indulgence, self-esteem, etc. They don't want anyone disrupting their pursuit, particularly not Bible, Constitution, and gun toting folks.

The population generally has been deafened by all the selling, salesmen, solicitors, advertisers, and they really don't care to hear about one more idea or philosophy that will cost them what they are not willing to pay, and that they don't even want.

Furthermore, the people who do understand are so deluged and surrounded with evil that many of them are paralyzed into inaction or ineffectiveness. The tidal wave is sweeping over the city, the volcano is spewing firebombs in everyone's back yard--they are engulfed, and retreat to their comfortable little worlds, or are spread thinly across many battle fronts.

The bottom line is, we have little support in promoting that which is so necessary to restore our liberty.

5. Keep Your Eyes Open And Your Mind Sharp

Watch for abuses. What's the latest angle for registering and confiscating your guns? Again, this sounds easy, but it can be tricky, because there's so much hyperbole and nonsense emanating from our own quadrant. There are what might be termed superfluous issues, false alarms, unbalanced patriots, and those more interested in making a buck or a name than in presenting the unvarnished truth.

To catch abuses early, have good sources of information. Start with several local talk show host who are not given to exaggeration, for the most up to date information. Then consider a reputable publication like Human Events for national political news, plus email news letters from organizations like GOA, and NRA, although you have to be careful, because NRA tends to compromise on Second Amendment issues. These sources might not be timely, but they can alert you to trends that indicate what's going to happen. You also need several local sources, since confrontations you're involved in will be close to you. Don't forget friends who can physically go to a location and check out what's really happening. Police scanners are nice to have, since most confrontations will involve the police, military, or federal agencies.

Don't panic or be influenced by hysteria or unverified information. Calmly gather ALL facts. As a rule of thumb, people exaggerate and misinterpret situations. Don't make impulsive decisions if you can't gather accurate intelligence fast enough to please those urging immediate action. You'll always find someone loudly calling for immediate and drastic action. It's better to err on the side of caution than to wave a gun in someone's face and later decide you made a mistake. All you do is scare off the public support we so desperately need to win. And earn yourself a long prison term for no good reason.

After you know what's really happening, as opposed to the latest rumors, you can decide if a situation merits a response. And, you can determine exactly how to respond.

What is the line, beyond which we will not go? When will we start shooting? I would like to offer this: we will not allow our guns to be confiscated. We may hide them, sell them, send them out of state, bury them, or whatever. But, we will not surrender them, and when it becomes evident that confiscation is becoming systematic, we will meet those carrying out the confiscation, confront them peacefully, and stop them. If violence ensues, we will not be the initiators of it, but we will defend ourselves, and those who are being disarmed.

Knowing that someone is surrounded because of gun confiscation is extremely critical, because if we don't know for sure what is happening, our response will be timid and confused. That's why it's better to not act than to act prematurely or with only partial information. You can bet money that unscrupulous "patriots," the mentally unbalanced, criminals, and provocateurs will wave the Constitution to move us into premature or unnecessary action. Besides, martyrs and victims do more to arouse a sleeping populace than just about anything. If we give the other side martyrs, we will doubly ruin our chances of victory.

Carry a laminated card with phone numbers of friends, talk shows who can broadcast what's happening (with times when they are live), media outlets, police (so you can ask them what's happening), local numbers for an attorney who will help you, etc.

Timely, accurate intelligence is key to our success.

6. Know Your Friends, And Know How To Communicate With Them

Know who will stand with you when the heat things heat up, and have several means of communication established. Be aware that most means can be monitored and shut down in an "emergency," including cell phones. Encrypted computer programs can be easily circumvented by means such as DIRT, and programs that stay resident even after you reformat your hard drive. They don't have to break the encryption, they just steal your password.

7. Inform The Masses

Respond in mass, and bring the media, even if they are not sympathetic. When the Branch Davidians were attacked, the media was not on their side, but we figured out what was happening, and it gave us the opportunity to seek out other sources of information.

Put a significant amount of effort into rallying as many people as possible.

If enough people respond, we stand a good chance of thwarting or delaying them. The core of our strategy should be to rally enough people to action quickly enough to stop Constitutional violations, without extreme measures.

If we can rally them to the polls on election day to vote out the rascals, and to vote down the bad laws, that's the best method of all. Since we can't do that on a consistent basis, I take it as an indication that too many people are complacent, apathetic, uninformed, or not on our side.

8. Defend

Assume a defensive posture. Let them shoot first. And be sure to video tape it!! Our job is to defend the Constitution; let them be the ones to attack American citizens. We only defend. This is the historical example that has proven effective. The British move against and fired upon the minutemen at Lexington Green. The Mexican troops demanded the cannon and were seeking a place to cross the river and seize the cannon before the Texans fired. The Nazis attacked the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and shipped out many of them before the Jews resisted. According to their testimony, the Branch Davidians did not shoot until they were fired upon. Randy Weaver never fired one shot.

On the other hand, those examples where people have carried out acts of aggression that were not in self defense have been universally condemned by the public, as they should be. Even in Texas, William B. Travis attacked a body of Mexican troops with no defensive objective. He was roundly condemned by the same Texans who later joined him fighting Santa Anna.

Attacks that are not obviously defensive, or symbolic strikes, or strikes that gain no strategic or military advantage are only terrorist attacks.

Any action must have a reasonable possibility of achieving a specific goal, which must be part of a larger strategy of ultimately:

--defending ourselves and our Constitutional rights;

--winning public support;

--setting back the enemy, that is, rendering them less able to harm us or our rights;

--restoring America to Constitutional/Biblical liberty

We should avoid premature action as heartily as non-defensive action. It's better to suffer wrong than to start something too early. Err on the side of caution.

If we strike without the public being able to see that our actions are defensive, we will lose the moral high ground in their eyes, which will destroy our potential support base, and will guarantee our defeat. We will become isolated, easy targets of both propaganda and bullets. We will be picked off even as we are made to appear as a few lone crazies who are a threat, and who are out to disrupt everyone's placid pursuits.

9. Those In Power Should Speak Out And Stand Up

People in power, particularly in law enforcement, need to take a well-articulated, principled stand against those attempting to disarm the populace. They need to stand with and support those resisting disarmament. They need to call the populace to mass resistance, with themselves acting as an example. There is probably no other single factor that will more quickly rally the populace and diffuse a confrontation than someone in power standing against disarmament. This principle also suggests that you should put yourself in a position of leadership so that, when the time comes, you can speak out and be heard.


I don't think we have enough people on our side to win a major confrontation, which is why we must bring others on board. We must know what is happening in our area so we can respond quickly and appropriately. Hopefully, all that will be necessary is to rally people to picket and protest anti-Second Amendment activities. But, whatever the case or the cost, we must unflinchingly hold the line, which means we will never surrender our arms.


Appendix I


--Fear: they don't want to die or go to prison, lose all their possessions, their family, etc. ("If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.")

--Inexperience: They've never engaged in any confrontation of any sort, from picketing to civil disobedience, and now they are going to engage in armed resistance and die?!? Not very likely. That's why it helps to start with harmless activities like picketing--your supporters have the chance to build their courage. They won't be green to being threatened with arrest, or at having someone wave a gun in their face, or in being tear gassed. A good place to start picketing is at the local abortion clinic, or at the local city council meeting where the homosexual agenda is being pushed. Or they can pass out gospel tracts at the local government school. These activities will also help them stop being complacent to all the evil that is around them.

Uncertainty: They don't know what or who to believe, they don't know if they are hearing a false alarm, or if those raising the alarm are kooks. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Freemen in Montana were raising a false alarm. They engaged in various criminal activities, and then wanted to use the Constitution to justify their misdeeds. This is one reason why we must have impeccable evidence, and be able to prove to the average person that the confrontation is real, and that liberty is really at stake.

--Unthreatened: They don't feel personally threatened. This is probably one of our biggest obstacles. Nobody's after their hunting rifle, just those crazy people with those assault weapons and .50 BMGs and machine guns that nobody needs for hunting, and that have no sporting purpose.

--Won't help: They don't believe it will do any good to fight, not enough people care, they will waste their life, and cast their families to the wind.

--They have faith in their government. It's really not that bad, and it's for the best, and whoever's being surrounded probably deserves it.

--It can't happen here.

Appendix II


All this discussion of armed resistance may beg the question: What's the big deal about gun control? Why should we hazard our lives to stop it? And, where is this tyranny? To answer briefly: the Second Amendment is the guarantor of the rest of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Therefore, an attack on the Second Amendment is an attack on the entire Constitution. Without the Second Amendment, we have no means to physically retain our other rights; they become dusty words on an old piece of paper that can be ignored. If we lose the Second Amendment, we lose all the other rights at the same time.

First, our rights came into existence because of the principles in the Second Amendment--arms and militias. They had no rights, no Constitution, no liberty, and would never have had any without the Second Amendment.

This point can be easily demonstrated by examining the justifications given for the American revolution in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence: "In every stage of these Suppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury." The colonists exhausted every available means of appeal over a long period of time, but the oppressive conditions only worsened, and they had no peaceful means left to use. The only recourse is elegantly stated by Patrick Henry: "An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!". All our rights were literally born from the Second Amendment, and, I might add, God is equally a part of Patrick Henry's equation.

Second, British oppressors understood that arms are the guarantor of liberty, and that to prevent liberty, they had to prevent arms, ie, enact gun control. The chain of events went something like this:

--The British had no intention of granting the colonists any sort of liberty, and so they never heard the colonists' petitions.

--Unrest grew in the colonies.

--The British sent troops and ships to ensure that their rule was enforced.

--Troops and the accompanying suppression brought more unrest, with a move towards independence and armed resistance.

--To squelch any possible attempts to throw off their hold on the colonies, the British began disarming the disaffected. They disarmed individuals, the city of Boston, and attempted to seize weapons and stores at Lexington and Concord.

--Revolution erupted over the seizure of militia stores at Lexington and Concord.

The chain of events was quite similar in Texas under Santa Anna.

--Santa Anna began unraveling the constitution under which many of the colonists emigrated, and worked himself into position as dictator of Mexico, of which Texas was a part.

--Texas' government was outlawed, and her representative to Mexico was arrested, quashing any hopes for redress of grievances.

--Santa Anna enacted various acts which oppressed the Texas colonists.

--Unrest increased, and people began agitating against Mexican oppression.

--Santa Anna began sending troops into Texas, and demanded arrest of those deemed ringleaders in the then peaceful rebellion.

--Public sentiment swung wildly against Santa Anna, unrest exploded.

--Mexican troops began confiscating weapons and breaking up suspicious groups to prevent Texans from escaping Santa Anna's grasp, and from enjoying the liberties they desired.

--Mexican troops moved to confiscate a cannon at the town of Gonzales. The colonists violently resisted, and another revolution was sparked by an act of gun confiscation.

Tyrants, whether contemporary or historical, understand that arms in the hands of the populace threaten tyranny. If the populace is armed, they may be able to forcibly obtain rights they are otherwise denied. It seems rather obvious that Americans and Texans enjoy their rights because of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment guarantees Constitutional rights by maintaining the balance of power, and checks and balances. If Mao correctly stated that power grows from the barrel of a gun, when the people are disarmed, they will be powerless, and the government will be all powerful.

When the people have been disarmed and are helplessly prostrated before an all powerful government, there is no balance of power between the people and government. There is no final check on runaway tyranny.

The imbalance of power requires government to remain indefinitely good, benevolent, and harmless. I can't think of any government that remained indefinitely good.

The founding fathers of our country had no such illusions of trust: they understood the depravity of human nature. They understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely. They understood that government must be restrained with the chains of the Constitution. They did not incorporate the system of checks and balances because they had faith in the government. Having faith in the government is a complete reversal of the founders' original theory of eternal distrust and vigilance.

Those attacking the Second Amendment reveal their tendency to tyranny, and to destroy all the Constitution.

The Second Amendment states in plain English that: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A casual perusal of the other Amendments reveals that this enumerates the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms. Refusing to follow this simple enjoinder bodes ill for the rest of the Constitution, because they put themselves above the Constitution. They will not be bound by it. If they don't follow one part of it, why should they follow any of it? They will make or enforce whatever laws they please, and answer to no higher authority.

In some cases, they do not even follow their own unconstitutional laws, as the BATF did when they illegally computerized data from millions of gun purchases recorded on yellow sheets (Form 4473) that have been turned over to BATF by out-of-business gun dealers (most gun dealers have been run out of business by Clinton's efforts).

As a rule of thumb, no tyrant wishes to be bound by laws that are inconvenient to his agenda. It comes as no surprise that those supporting gun control have been preceded by a long line of tyrants doing more or less the same things.

Santa Anna had no intentions of being constrained by the Mexican Constitution of 1824, nor by the Mexican legislature, which he dissolved. He had no intention of being pressured by the populace, either, and he turned the military loose on some of those who resisted him. King George had no intentions of being constrained by the petitions or pleadings or rights of the America colonists.

In spite of their demonstrated tendency towards tyranny, we are supposed to trust those attacking the Second Amendment. We are supposed to trust them to be perpetually harmless and beneficent for as long as this country exists. We are also supposed to ignore human tendencies to become corrupt and abusive over time, particularly when given power. We are also supposed to believe that they will not destroy the rest of the Constitution along with the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is the final guarantor of our physical lives against crime, invasion, oppressive government, and insurrection. Just ask a survivor of the Los Angeles riots who tried calling 911, but were told that no help was available. It is also helpful to remember that most of the time, police respond after a crime has been committed. They investigate the crime scene and try to find the criminal, and they send the victim to the hospital or morgue.

The Second Amendment is one of the most effective means we have to obey our Lord's commands to put away the evil, to defend the helpless and fatherless, to break yokes, etc. Not to mention that the Second Amendment is an embodiment of our Lord's command for us to carry--bear--a sword. (The information in this paragraph is covered at http://www.ktc.com/personal/sirdavid .)

To borrow a maxim, fear those who fear your guns, or as historian H. Yoakum said in 1855, " Any government that would attempt to disarm its people is despotic; and any people that would submit to it deserves to be slaves!" If the Second Amendment enables us to preserve our Constitutional rights, our lives, and is our means to obey God, we can conclude that gun control attacks our rights, lives and ability to obey God. As such, it is tyranny. It is not a precursor or a forerunner, but in and of itself, gun control is tyranny, and we have no choice but to fight it as the tyranny it is.

Appendix III


These incidents prompted my thinking about armed resistance, and shaped the content of this essay.

The Branch Davidians.

According to their testimony, on April 19, 1993 they were attacked by charging BATF agents who opened fire without provocation. The Davidians fired in self defense. They made no attempt to ambush the agents as they were coming in, or to mow them down as they were retreating.

The Davidians felt they had no choice but to shoot back to preserve their lives. I cannot think of a clearer example of the need for armed resistance: to defend lives.

If the agents had not fired first, or had not presented themselves as violent attackers (marauding, rampaging, or whatever the term is), I don't think the Davidians would have been justified in shooting. While the warrant was patently unconstitutional, the raid was not part of a larger scheme of gun confiscation. If it had been, the Davidians could have allowed the search, and then joined groups of resistors to fight against the agents at a different location. Or, if it had been without any doubt whatsoever--as evidenced by politicians' speeches and laws calling for gun confiscation with dates for it to begin, etc--the Davidians had sufficient numbers and firepower to conduct a devastating ambush.

Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris

Agents were illegally surveilling Randy Weaver's property. Trespassing is not a sufficient cause to shoot someone. Kevin Harris fired only after one of the agents shot his dog. Harris' jury decided he fired in self defense, which, of course, is justifiable. He then retreated to the Weaver home, and neither he nor the Weavers fired any more shots, even though they probably had the opportunity. Again, this was not part of a larger gun confiscation scheme, and the Weavers would not have been able to better defend their lives by shooting back. Also, their tactical situation did not justify a shoot out, had that been necessary. They would have been slaughtered in the wooden shack. Their hopes of future justice were realized in court several years later.

Boston Massacre.

As far as I know, no one shot back. Perhaps there were so many troops it would have been suicidal to return fire. Perhaps, since the troops only fired one volley (assuming that's what happened), it was obvious that they weren't going to shoot any more, and so there was no need to shoot back in self defense. Maybe they were just a bunch of drunken rioters who really did not have liberty in mind.

Instead of shooting, the patriots spread the news far and wide, and galvanized much support for the American cause. We would do well to learn from the example: martyrs bring large numbers to your side, if your cause is justifiable in the eyes of the people. On the other hand, acts of aggression that are not borne out of severe and long term violence will eliminate public support, and if that happens, we will lose.

The Disarming of Boston.

I don't recall reading about any armed resistance. People voluntarily complied, and were given receipts for their guns, which were promised to be returned to them at a later date. It was similar to the modern concept of forcing people to store guns at shooting ranges.

Lexington Green.

At some point during their march toward Lexington, it became obvious that the British intended to seize the militia arms--cannon, muskets, ball, shot, powder, wagons. In spite of this, Captain Parker said, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." The Americans did not fire until the British fired on them first. After that, it was open season on the troops who were sent to seize the weapons.

Gonzales, Texas 1835

Mexican troops demanded the town cannon, but the people politely declined, claiming the man who needed to turn over the cannon was gone. When it became obvious that the Texans were not going to surrender the gun, the troops sought a place to cross the river to take the cannon by force. Realizing the situation, and having reinforcements from surrounding areas, the Texans attacked the troops, routing them. This incident is covered in detail at http://www.ComeAndTakeIt.com .

Because the troops were moving in to seize the gun, Texans were justified in attacking the troops. There was no doubt of any sort that the troops were there for gun seizure, and that their attack was imminent.

At an earlier point, when a number of Texans lead by William B. Travis threatened troops not directly engaged in hostilities or gun confiscation, the public responded in anger, and rejected the actions. This incident of unnecessary aggression amply demonstrates that we must maintain the defensive, or what little popular support generated by our cause will be lost.

Joe Gray.

I remember hearing a talk show host call for people to come to Mr. Gray's defense, and wondered if I should go. From what little I know of the situation (lack of information), Mr. Gray was going to be arrested for refusing to show up in court over not having driver's license and such. Mr. Gray was going to shoot anyone who came to arrest him.

In contemplating what I would do, I had to ask, in what situations is deadly force necessary? In what circumstances do we engage in armed resistance? Over what issues do we pull the trigger? If it is proper for Joe Gray to shoot someone over the driver's license issue, will others follow suit? Mr. Gray's situation prompted a lot of the thinking that went into this essay. In the end, the question boiled down to this: Are we going to start shooting people over the driver's license issue? I had to answer: No. I believe this matter is better settled in court.

I certainly think it proper for Mr. Gray to defend his life, and if his holding out was based on him fearing for his life, I would be completely agreed. I don't fault the talk show host in the least for going down there the night they were expecting to be attacked. It is entirely proper to defend people. However, I would then wish to see him working toward a solution that would both guarantee his safety, and enable him to have his day in court.

This conclusion will probably draw fire. If I'm to change my mind, however, I need to hear an answer to the question: Why should we shoot people over the driver's license issue? All I ask is that my patriotism not be questioned. I'm solidly dedicated to defending the Constitution. Our only disagreement is over how best to carry on our defense, and what strategy is most likely to win.

Indianapolis Baptist Temple

The government seized this church for refusing to collect taxes from their employees. It's not that the taxes were unpaid; the employees paid the full amount required by IRS.

After exhausting all appeals, the members decided to refuse to vacate the church. US Marshalls were called in to forcibly remove the church members and others standing with them.

The church people decided against using violence, and I think the response of all involved bears testimony that the pastor's choice was wise. The local law enforcement said they would have nothing to do with the church seizure, because they did not agree with it. Even the US Marshalls hesitated, because the judge ordered them to seize the church even if occupied, but they did not until after most people left on a promise from the Bush administration that the church would be left alone. The Marshals even stated that they had no intent to arrest anyone.

At least 35 pastors were there in the church standing with the congregation, and many people traveled across the country to be present in the church. If the pastor had decided to resist violently, I doubt if he would have any support, and he certainly would have had no sympathy from anyone in law enforcement. The feds would have wheeled in overwhelming firepower, and the populace in general would have thought they were receiving their just deserts.

Besides gaining the popular sympathy, there are a few other reasons why violent resistance was not necessary.

Nobody was being killed.

Nobody was being disarmed.

The population was not aroused to action. If the seizure of a church from nonviolent people did not provoke a response, how on earth could they have aroused the population to action by shooting people?

We have to start at the lowest level and escalate from there. I can see the argument that the church had already carried the appeal process all the way through and failed, and they had no recourse. However, people need to see what is happening, and who is the aggressor. If they had started shooting right away, it would not have been clear who was the aggressor, and the populace would have been manipulated into believing the church was at fault, not the government.

If we are going to act without support from large sectors of the population, it is because we have given up on them, and have decided to live out the maxim "Better dead than red." We have given up trying to secure rights for everyone.

It's not that we have to be slaves to public opinion, but, (1) we won't win if more people don't come off the fence and join us, (2) the historical model involves large numbers of supporters joining in the cause to achieve victory. A more basic problem may be that we are using the wrong historical model. Our situation may be less like Texas in 1835 and the USA in 1775, and more like Germany in 1935. It may be that the people don't want God or the Constitution. We may be like the Waldenses in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Perhaps our only success will be to stay alive and to try to cling to our rights for ourselves, and to hope to pass on to our children the dying flames of hope and liberty.

I haven't heard a really good reason why we should start shooting over the seizure. I have heard several people say they are unsure as to what is the proper response. Our basic principle should be, we will be peaceful unless we have compelling reasons to be otherwise, and only if we have no alternative. Having said that, I'm still glad the militia was ready and willing to fight it out. Someday, I believe, it will be time, and it is better to be ready ahead of time.

A sufficient non-violent resistance could have been made that would have prevented takeover of the church, if, (1) they had followed through with the initial stand they took to not surrender the church, (2) they had escalated the situation to bring to bear more public support. The pastor was not willing to make such a stand.

Initially, they were not going to surrender the church, no matter what. They took the matter all the way to the Supreme Court, and when that failed, they still refused to let the feds have their property. They sent out appeals for people to come and help. People came, expecting to do their part to stop the government from seizing the church. They were ready to face the full wrath of the US Marshals, and the judge who sent them. The militia was standing ready to engage the feds, should the church ask for their help. No one came expecting to make only a token resistance. No one was hoping just for a symbolic gesture. The plan was simple: no matter what, the feds were not going to have the church. The simple but eloquent plan was why so many people were galvanized by the situation.

For some reason, the church decided that, once the US Marshalls carried them out of the church building, the matter was over. They would not stop the feds. The church's new position disheartened many people who were hoping to help, or at least were sympathetic.

In planning to end the struggle after the people were carried out by the US Marshals, the church violated the important principle of escalating a situation to increase public support.

Following is one scenario that might have succeeded. Everyone couldn't stay at the church indefinitely, because of work, family, school, and other obligations. But, many people, including talk show hosts, closely watched, and were standing by for action. When word came that the feds were coming or that they had already arrived, just like the Americans spread the word that the British were coming, people could have spread the word by phone, radio, internet, etc, and many could have rushed to the scene, including plenty of media. People could have driven or walked to the location. If everything was blocked off, which is possible, people could have begun massing at police lines, protesting (politely, of course), calling for help from surrounding communities just like those at Gonzales, Texas. All the activity would have generated lots of media attention, which would have generated more people. Once a sufficient number of people were amassed, they could have peacefully broken through the lines and rushed to the church property to join the already besieged and perhaps arrested church members. If they had been able to drive their vehicles to the property, they could have (unintentionally, of course) blocked the vehicles of the feds, which would have delayed them a great deal (ala, Gonzales, Texas 1835), allowing more people to come (this would definitely NOT be the time for fire ants).

After awhile, the situation would feed itself as more people found out, and knew that the church was going to hold the line no matter what, and help was needed immediately. Pastors could have helped by urging their people to defend the church. The feds would not have been able to seize the property, if everyone had been determined enough. And, not a shot would have been fired.

Road Blocks.

Politely refuse to be searched. Sue the dickens out of them later if they search you anyway. Rally a bunch of like minded people to picket the roadblock, call the media, discuss Fourth Amendment violations, etc. If, however, a roadblock is part of an orchestrated and publicized gun confiscation effort, more drastic measures might be appropriate, but need to be conducted thoughtfully. We still need to let the public see who are the aggressors, and rally lots of angry people to protest. We need to give the public time to arouse before we act.

The Police Officer Accused Of Raping A Woman.

I heard about a police officer who was accused of raping a woman, and someone implied he ought to be taken care of. How quickly we forget our anger when we are we are punished without the benefit of a just trial, when we are denied our rights, when we are denied due process. Are we now to treat people in the way we say is so unjust? Let the man have a trial. Let the jury decide if he's guilty after weighing the evidence, not some guy who knows only what he heard in the news. Let him have a chance to appeal, and so on.

California Gun Confiscation, House To House Searches, .50 BMG Buyback/Confiscation, Class III Confiscation

Each of these examples, given at the beginning of this article, is obvious gun confiscation. While they may target only certain classes of firearms: machine guns, .50 BMGs, assault rifles, etc, they are undisguised confiscation, and must be resisted. I think the pattern is simple enough. Spread the word as rapidly as possible to as many people as possible, not forgetting to use the media, even though they will put a bad spin on our resistance. Turn out in force to protest, shadow those confiscating, etc. If the escalation of our side continues, begin pushing the limit, until the other side responds. Behave wisely, fight bravely, never give up. Each situation will have its own unique characteristics. Remember to be guided by history as much as possible. Fight for your houses, your wives, children, your liberty, your land. Put away the evil among you. Always give those attacking the Constitution the opportunity to change sides, but not an opportunity to further destroy our liberty.


As a rule of thumb, I don't think most isolated instances qualify as the proper time to engage in armed resistance. You don't have time to observe a pattern, to picket and protest, to arouse the populace, to inquire and ascertain the true facts, to appeal what is being done. You also don't have much chance to accomplish anything useful. In the case of a gun confiscation campaign, you'll have advance notice and be better able to plan your tactics. After all else has failed, I think anyone directly involved in confiscating firearms is fair game.

Appendix IV


If they prefer arresting you over shooting you, all the better, unless allowing yourself to be arrested would result in confiscation of arms, which is what we are fighting to prevent in the first place. Just because we are defending the right to bear arms does not eliminate civil disobedience as one of our tools.

Non-lethal defenses

Don't forget the pepper spray and mace. It works against them as well as us, and it beats the heck out of shooting someone. If it is sufficient, why use more drastic measures? We should meet deadly force with deadly force if and only if that is necessary, and only if it is the only way to stop them from what they are doing.

At the raid to seize Elion Gonzales, none of the relatives or supporters did anything, including the militia people. They didn't want to shoot, probably because they thought it was too drastic. If the relatives had maced the agents, that would have been less drastic than shooting them, although I'm sure they'd still be doing hard time in the pen. As an alternative, perhaps they could have come to Texas and collected several bucket loads of fire ants. They could have thrown a bucket load of ants on the agents, or simply dumped them inside the vehicles. The entire federal government is no match for a load of fire ants!

Of course, we do not want to be the aggressors or on the offensive. We defend. Nor do we wish to harm or cause discomfort to anyone unless it is necessary as a matter of defense.

Does an armed populace guarantee liberty?

An armed populace doesn't necessarily guarantee civility or liberty. An evil and depraved populace will move into anarchy, or organized brutality, instead of liberty, but gun control is still not the answer, because as the populace grows evil, they will migrate into government, and will use its power to abuse and destroy--making it doubly imperative for the good people to retain arms, to defend themselves and other innocents from the corrupt population and the government. Naturally, the government will not want the people to retain arms, precisely so they can brutalize them without opposition. See Foxe's Book of Martyrs for examples.

When is it time to STOP shooting?

This question may be just as important as ascertaining when it is time to start shooting.

I've heard people say that, once the shooting starts, if they survive, they intend to clean out the closet, and take out every corrupt politician, judge, shill for the other side, etc. I would again ask, do we want to treat others in a way we consider unjust when we are treated that way? No trial, no jury of peers, no appeals, no evidence? And, how much of the populace would support such measures, even if they supported the initial defensive actions? If we have that much public support (that we are winning the confrontation), we can give them trials, just as was done to Ceausescu the dictator of Romania, and as is being done to Slobodan Milosevic. Remember, George Washington did not kill General Gage when he captured him. In fact, he would not even allow his men to be disrespectful.

"Tax Protesting"

A good example on well-intentioned patriot information that can lead you astray relates to income tax. There are many theories how you can avoid income taxes, and most of them will end you up in hot water. It's not that they are all false ideas, although some of them are definitely nonsense, it's just that they don't work in court. For me to point that out is to invite immediate denunciation as a false patriot, provocateur, traitor, etc. However, if we cannot dissent with each other and try to come up with the best ideas, and throw out the bad ideas, we will be stuck with the ideas of whoever is loudest, instead of whoever is wisest. For the best info I've found on income tax matters, see Larry BeCraft's page at: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm For the rest of Larry BeCraft's info, go to: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/

A Few Biblical Reasons Why We Should Not Flee To Another Country To Escape The Coming Confrontations.

Isaiah 10:2,3,30:16

Isaiah 10:2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and [that] they may rob the fatherless!

3 And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the desolation [which] shall come from far? to whom will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your glory?


Isaiah 30:16 But ye said, No; for we will flee upon horses; therefore shall ye flee: and, We will ride upon the swift; therefore shall they that pursue you be swift.

Our forefathers who came to this country had nothing to gain by staying in Europe. We, on the other hand, have everything to lose by fleeing.

To leave is to turn our nation over to the wicked, and to abandon the helpless and the innocent to destruction. How can God bless us for failing to obey his commands to defend and protect the helpless and innocent?

Running also amounts to turning over our rights, our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and everything our forefathers and all that the veterans have died defending to the enemy to be destroyed, since we will not stand to defend them. They gave their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors; all we offer is our fleeing backsides. What a blushing shame. It is tantamount to dropping the flag and fleeing on the field of battle. The enemy will desecrate and destroy it. We might retain our lives for a time, but our honor, and the standard under which we fought will have been already surrendered in the most cowardly manner. It is also failing to obey the commands of our Lord to stand in the gap and make up the hedge, and to cry aloud and spare not, and to fight for our lands, wives, houses, etc.

Instead of looking at the frothing waves that are overwhelming us, and listening to fierce winds howling in our ears, let us look to our Lord, and listen to his still small voice, commanding us to quit ourselves like men and fight, and the Lord do what seemeth him good. Quit yourselves like men, and fight.