Guest Post: Understanding The Fear Of Self-Defense And Revolution

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith via,

Our era is a strange one when considering how social attitudes have developed in such a contrary fashion to the rest of history. I think that our forefathers would look upon our current culture with bewilderment when confronted with the fact that our generation has all but abandoned the option of physical rebellion as a tool for social change. Even among the most enslaved of nations and peoples, the idea of revolution has been held in regard as an entirely moral and principled affair involving every individual, no matter their age or economic station. Today, however, that which we call “revolution” has been delegated mostly to college-age intellectuals and has been so watered down and whitewashed with politically correct restrictions that the concept is hardly recognizable.

I believe the civil rights movements in America and in India in the 20th century have in many ways warped the public view of how opposition to totalitarianism is actually accomplished. I find it interesting that movements led by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. enjoy so much adoration in mainstream media and in public schooling, while the American Revolution is often either misrepresented or not discussed at all. Gandhi’s movement was, in concrete terms, a failure until Indians had actually began organizing to physically fight the British, causing the Crown to attempt to defuse the movement by suddenly offering up a reformation of Indian governance (one that would continue to benefit them). When one examines the facts surrounding Cointelpro operations by the FBI and CIA during the civil rights movement in America, one realizes that half the efforts and actions were legitimate and the other half entirely manipulated.

Over the course of half a century, the philosophy of “anti-violence” has come to include a distinct distaste for self-defense. Self-defense is now consistently equated to “violence” (and is, thus, immoral), regardless of environmental circumstances.

Even in the liberty movement, there are people who disregard physical defense as either barbaric or “futile” and have adopted rather less-effective pacifist ideologies of more socialist activism. The problem with certain factions of libertarianism is that they tend to live within their own heads, reveling in a world of Ayn Randian and Rothbardian political and social theory, while abandoning the other side of concrete resistance. Some in the survival community call these people “egghead libertarians,” and I think the label fits.

They rejoice only in the intellectual; thus, they tend to see themselves only as “intellectual warriors.” For them, the war against tyranny by extension must be fought on an intellectual battlefield. Otherwise, as individuals, they have little to offer the resistance. They believe that if they merely present a better and more logical philosophy, they will win over the masses to their side or even change the souls of the rather soulless psychopaths creating tyranny in the first place. Like magic, they will have won the fight without ever truly fighting. It sounds like a strategy right out of the “Art Of War,” but really it is an intricate excuse designed to avoid risk.

They have almost no experience with and, therefore, no respect for the concept of self-defense and revolution. And they have no capacity to fathom what such an endeavor would entail. This unknown scenario inspires fear in them — a fear of struggle, a fear of failure and a fear of death.

While taking action from a position of love for one’s fellow man is indeed noble, it is sometimes not enough in the face of pure evil — the kind of evil inherent in the ranks of elitism and the globalist ideology. It is important to keep at least one foot on the ground when building a movement of dissent and realize that while maintaining the moral high ground is paramount, there are limitations to what peaceful resistance can accomplish, depending on the opponent. If you are not prepared to use both peaceful means and physical defense if necessary, your movement will ultimately fail against an enemy without conscience.

Never before in history have humans been so dismissive of the self-defense concept when it comes to government, and I attribute this to clever conditioning and to an ingrained and powerful fear. Here are some of the most commonly heard arguments against physical revolution and why they are either ill-conceived or outright disingenuous.

Revolution Is Morally Wrong?

I find the attitude of moral superiority of the nonviolence crowd rather disconcerting at times and, in many ways, dishonest. It is very common to run into nonviolence proponents who are not satisfied with their own personal choice of pacifism alone. In many cases, they will attack or undermine other parts of the movement preparing for self-defense on the basis that even mere preparation is somehow akin to physical aggression. These people are never satisfied until everyone in the movement meets their “high standards” of activist purity.

In the end, I think their position is less about a regard for peace than it is about a regard for their own egos. People in general tend to support the formation of taboos (as opposed to honest principles) in order to gain what they see as the moral upper hand over others. They invent a condition of arbitrary piety around themselves in an act of self-elevation that does not constitute true morality.

Anyone who makes self-defense a taboo is not only living in a fantasy land outside the inherent structures of natural law, he is also likely doing so because he enjoys the sense of social superiority such a position affords. In this way many of the more irrational nonviolence activists are, in fact, no better that the raving acolytes of the cult of political correctness.

Physical self-defense against tyranny is not only necessary, but entirely honorable. When the violence of an individual is thwarted by defense, when a potential thief robs the wrong house, when a rape is prevented by an armed and prepared woman or when a potential murderer is shot dead by a citizen who refused to be a victim, our society cheers. But when someone suggests that the same measures be taken against a violent and corrupt government, people suddenly claim moral hazard.

There is no difference between the act of defending oneself against a common criminal and defending oneself against a criminal government. I would venture to say that self-defense is a moral imperative more vital to the survival of peace and freedom than any other.

Revolution Is Futile And The Enemy Is Too Strong?

When anti-defense initiates cannot effectively argue against the moral principles of physical revolution, they invariably change tactics, asserting instead that revolution is a useless endeavor that will end only in tragedy for the participants. I see this argument as a product of brainless nihilism rather than rationalism, and such a defeatist mindset invariably stems from cowardice rather than logic.

Nihilism is a powerful psychological force that destroys all hope and all positive pursuits. It is essentially the act of denying success before an endeavor is ever undertaken. Nihilists ensure their own failure because for them every scenario is a no-win scenario.

To them, I might seem like a blind optimist, while they see themselves as realists. In truth, pro-self-defense advocates are far more realistic. There is certainly a fundamental difference in the manner in which we look at the world. When I and those “optimists” like me see a problem, we look for a solution regardless of the scale of the threat; and if we cannot immediately find an obvious solution right away, we keep working until we do. There is no such thing as a no-win scenario for us. There is always a way to overcome an obstacle. The odds of success are not relevant where revolution against oligarchy is concerned.

I would also point out the reality that, at bottom, it does not matter what the odds are in a revolution for freedom. When all is said and done, you will probably be confronted with two choices in the face of tyranny: fight and possibly die; or surrender, become a slave and probably still die. Those who argue against self-defense are in most cases trying to avoid the inevitability of this choice by creating non-options and non-solutions out of thin air. This is the opposite of realism.

Physical revolution requires a methodology of adaptivity and courage. Fear has no place in the mind of a freedom fighter, and nihilism is just as foreign to him. The goal of liberty will be accomplished. Totalitarians will be defeated. The size of the movement is not a factor. We expect that we will be in the minority. There is no other outcome but victory because we will allow no other outcome. Period. If we are proven wrong, then we are proven wrong; but it will not be due to a lack of trying.

In our age, arguments of the technological superiority of the enemy are often brandished as clear evidence of the uselessness of physical resistance. I think one could also make the argument that technological superiority in media manipulation and other fields could make nonviolent resistance useless as well. I’m not really sure why nihilists cling to the notion that technology matters at all, except that it perhaps offers an easy and lazy avenue of debate. The enemy has predator drones; therefore, revolution is futile.

In conjunction with Oath Keepers, I will soon be producing a video that will show the liberty movement how to build their own working thermal-evasion suits. Perhaps this will quell the incessant proclamations that drones and tanks and Apache helicopters mean anything at all in the face of asymmetric warfare. If the enemy can’t see you, they can’t kill you; and for every high-tech enemy, there is a low tech solution. Of course, I doubt this will mean anything to the nihilists, who don’t have the will to fight for anything except their belief that fighting back is useless.

Revolutions Are Always Co-Opted?

I have heard it argued by multiple sources within the liberty movement over the years that revolution is a poor option in defeating tyranny because of the cyclical nature of political and social change. They claim that all we have to do is look back at history to see that even when a revolution is successful in removing oligarchy, the resulting republic is invariably co-opted years or decades down the road. I agree, to a point.

The problem is not that the concept of revolution is ineffective. What these skeptics of physical rebellion tend to overlook or deliberately ignore is that no revolution in the history of man has ever gone far enough. Each revolution has targeted the corrupt government of their day, but no revolution has ever actually removed the elitist cabal behind those regimes — the same cabal of elites that has bankrolled nearly every tyranny over the past several centuries.

This is due in part to the fact that knowledge of who these elites are was not widespread. Today, for the first time ever, mankind has full access to information on who the globalists are and what they want. In fact, the elites barely hide who they are or what their intentions are anymore. One can simply look up the roster of organization like Bilderberg, Tavistock, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, etc. At least in the liberty movement, we know who the real enemy is.

Co-option is always a threat if you do not know who the enemy is. A revolution against the Obama administration alone, for example, would be useless because President Obama is nothing but a puppet, a mascot playing a role. Removing middlemen is a half-measure, and anyone who tries to lead you into revolution on the premise that Obama alone is the source of your troubles is probably an elitist leading you toward disaster. If you are not removing the root of the threat, then the threat will persist.

Co-option also occurs when people become obsessed with the idea of popular top-down leadership rather than bottom-up decentralized resistance. If you are out there looking for the next George Washington on a white horse to save you from tyranny, then you will eventually get him; but he may not be at all what he seems. Beware of generals and top brass suddenly in support of revolution. Beware of any notion of military coup. Beware of any revolution that uses political party divisions as a motivator. Beware of any government with a central bank that wishes to bankroll your revolution. Stay decentralized and refuse any push for top-down leadership. This is the only way to avoid co-option.

Revolution Solves Nothing Because Mankind Is ‘Predisposed’ To Tyranny?

The great lie being injected into the movement over the past few years is that removal of the elites will solve nothing because the “real problem” is the corrupt nature of humanity in general and that if we remove one set of elites, they will simply be replaced with another set, as if society is fatally predisposed to develop an elitist class. This is the most vapid form of defeatist garbage ever regurgitated by nihilists.

First, we have no idea whatsoever what life would be like without the globalist network because we have never lived in a society in which they have been removed, even for a single generation. I think early America after the revolution is the only example I can find of a society free from most elitist controls, and the prosperity that developed in that environment leads me to believe that removal of the entire elitist framework would result in undeniable positive changes for the world. Why else would the globalists spend the past two centuries attempting to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

Second, if mankind is so “predisposed” to become naturally subservient to an elitist class, why do the elites feel so compelled to manipulate the masses with complex forms of propaganda and fear tactics? Why go through all the trouble of engineering economic disparity and war? What is the point if we are all dumb animals just waiting to be ruled? The argument is nonsense. The elites spend billions of dollars, if not trillions of dollars, in capital and go to such extremes because oligarchy is not a natural state of man. It is so unnatural that the elites are forced to expend constant energy trying to keep us from progressing away from the slave dynamic.

I believe a revolution is indeed necessary, a final revolution to remove the influence of the globalist cult once and for all — not only their puppet governments, puppet political parties and puppet despots, but the globalists themselves. Will bad men still exist in this world? Of course they will. But the kind of advanced and well-organized internationlist machine that thirves today will no longer exist. To save a patient poisoned to the extreme, the patient must be purged until his body can recover on its own. The elites are a poison that must be physically removed from the human system.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LetThemEatRand's picture

"The great lie being injected into the movement over the past few years is that removal of the elites will solve nothing because the “real problem” is the corrupt nature of humanity in general and that if we remove one set of elites, they will simply be replaced with another set, as if society is fatally predisposed to develop an elitist class. This is the most vapid form of defeatist garbage ever regurgitated by nihilists."

No, the real problem is humanity.  Warlords, Kings, Tyrants and other sociopaths have ruled humanity since the beginning of time, because most people let them.  But it doesn't mean those of us who see it should not rise up.  A few years of freedom is worth the fight.

i_call_you_my_base's picture

No, the real problem is scale.

"Warlords, Kings, Tyrants and other sociopaths have ruled humanity since the beginning of time"

This isn't true. Define time and outline the timeline of human culture.

Anusocracy's picture

When your genes get threatened your threatened genes get going.

There has to be a threat against the survival of the majority by those in control before the people will turn on them. The rulers have to be the threatening outgroup to the victims' ingroup as it is normally played to create war.

Four chan's picture

as long as revolution is against the tribes interest no revolution will be allowed.

LetThemEatRand's picture

So long as we self-identify as Red, Blue, Socialist, Conservative, etc., there will be no revolution.*

*there is only one Tribe that matters anymore.  It's a big club.  We don't belong to it.

And down away fuckers for the youtube video link.

teslaberry's picture

i junked you because kid rock has even dissed his own music saying his audience is fucking retarded. he was a smart guy that surfed a wave of bad music to success. 


LetThemEatRand's picture

I'm retarded, so there's that.  Still love Kid Rock.   He's a bridge between left and right if you care to take it.

For the sake a balance, here's an important documentary about the prison industrial complex, and it's connection to Yellen.  Only 4 minutes.

SWRichmond's picture

No, the real problem is we are afraid to die.  Once you get past that, anything is possible.  One way to get past that is to realize that you are a slave, right now, and that living as a slave is ignoble, immoral, and downright intolerable.

N2OJoe's picture

Is a life without free will/choice, and the ability to do what you will with the fruits of your labor really a life worth living. Is it satisfying or fullfilling in any way?

People think I'm crazy and/or bluffing when I say I would sooner die on my feet than live on my knees, but IMHO choice is the very essence of life.

Sure I could go along to get along and have more cheap chinese made crap in my garage but I find it more personally fullfilling to buck the system and be my own man.

It will be a beautiful day we hit a critical mass of pissed off citizens in this country.

Anusocracy's picture

Kid Rock's sister Jill Ritchie over him any day.

jaxville's picture

  Yes ....Something that creates the need for people to think for themselves.  Their very survival becomes a matter of making decisions contrary to what they are being told to do.   For now things seem to work but soon they won't ....

RafterManFMJ's picture

These are the control rods that defuse any revolutionary action.

1. Welfare / Dat EBT
2. Porn, and plenty of it
3. Cheap Beer
4. Sports! 24/7 Sports! Did my team win!? Wheeeee!
5. State controlled media.

And the Revolution won't be televised - 'cause it ain't gonna happen.

Lost My Shorts's picture

Your last point is totally right, but you forgot the most important control rod, the one more important than all the others combined:  internal divisions in the non-elite public.  People fear each other much more than they fear the elite.  I am not so paranoid as to say it was all planned that way, but revolution is impossible in a multi-racial, multi-cultural society where divide-and-conquer is child's play.  Brandon Smith seems to be a nice, honorable man, but a majority of Americans fear his followers ten times more than they fear the NSA or the Rothschilds.

SmackDaddy's picture

umm, hate to break it to you.  but those divisions are real.  when the nigs move into my neighborhood you can bet your ass im moving out.  

oh and case you havent heard, we live in the greatest, free-est country in the whole world wide universe.  no need for revolution

Transformer's picture

You must be one of those intellectual libertarians he was talking about.  2 digit IQ, I bet.

Slave's picture

Rothschilds? What's that?

Signed - the average American.

mr.n3utr0n's picture

Just point us to the person in charge so we can ruff him up a bit. Anyone got intel on who it might be?

spottirade's picture

the revolution has been commoditised 

ThirteenthFloor's picture

6. Easy credit cheap toys
7. Slow erosion of net worth (no one notices)
8. Revision of History - un education

20834A's picture

RafterManFMJ While there's truth in that statement, it is also a bit harsh. The sheep are busy trying to survive; caught in the swirling detritus of daily living and survival. It's hard to be well-informed when you spend your energy and time at work, changing diapers, mowing the grass, etc. etc. I have great sympathy for the sheep. That's why I take on the heavy burden of sheepdog. I bear witness to the evil, and prepare to stand up... um, someday? In the meantime, I teach the children and grandchildren what liberty is, pass on old-style independent living skills, and teach 'em to shoot well. I have seen growing awareness among my extended family, friends, and neighbors. I have hope that I never had before. When critical mass is reached (and I do believe that will happen), my family will be among the 3%.

Even the sheep who won't fight can be passively useful. Tsarnev might not have been caught if, in a different scenario, he had been discovered in that boat by a partisan.

Utah_Get_Me_2's picture

Everything you have to say is reasoned. I'm confused about the part about Tsarnev? Are you saying that if a libertarian patriot found him he would've let him go? That kid and his brother are the most transparent patsies in the history of false flag terror. 

Rule one when dealing with the CIA/FBI if you must:

Never agree to take part in a 'drill' or become some sort of informant/operative. You will be set up.  

20834A's picture

I'm sorry not to be clear. What I meant about Tsarnev is: had it been an 'American patriot' involved in the Second American Revolution, and the man who found him had been a sympathizer who moved him along to other sympathizers, the authorities might never have caught him. In spite of the massive dragnet and gov resources.

psychobilly's picture

"These are the control rods that defuse any revolutionary action."

6. Government schools (dominated by feminists), busily trying to turn little boys into little girls and drugging those who resist into submission.

cherry picker's picture

You do not have to raise up and fight to gain freedom.  Look at it this way, since the Constitution was written, how many fights have occurred on American soil and as a result each one resulted in a loss of freedom?

The Natives were placed on reservations, that is not free.

When the south wanted to secede, there was revolution.  The south did not have the freedom to seperate.

There were other conflicts as well.

When blacks came to the Americas, they were not free and weren't free till after the 1960's in many places, but it was not a physical revolution whiich freed them.  They may not have been 'slaves' prior to the 1960's, but the racist policies kept them in shackles.

Ghandi also proved that peaceful movements can accomplish more with less murder and violence.

Trogdor's picture

Pacifism from a position of weakness is really just repackaged cowardice.  I think Ghandi even said something to that effect.  Ghandi accomplished a lot with "peaceful means" because the PTB knew that there was a backup plan.

i_call_you_my_base's picture

"Pacifism from a position of weakness is really just repackaged cowardice."


Nemo DeNovo's picture


Guess it hits a little close to home for you............

runningman18's picture


(Who is pretentious enough to use the word "tripe"?)

seek's picture

Exactly. MLK got the traction he did becauseTPTB would rather deal with him than Malcom X. This also didn't stop them from killing both in the end.

Kennedy's quote comes to mind: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." Ghandi, et al, simply presented two choices to the same outcome, one of which leaves TPTB with more power than the other.

FEDbuster's picture

They killed Kennedy, too.

TimmyB's picture

Bullshit. Pacifists in this country break in to military bases, smash and pour their own blood on military weapons, and serve long jail sentences as a result. They ain't fucking cowardly keyboard warriors hiding behind a computer. They are brave fighters for what they believe in. They put their lives and freedoms on the line. They are not fucking cowards.

The author of this article has little idea of why Gandhi was successful. The population of India could not be ruled by England unless the people of India assisted them. Once the Indian people, by refusing to obey or cooperate with England, showed they would no longer be ruled, the English knew their time was over.

African Americans showed they would not cooperate, so Jim Crow ended. Nonviolence means civil disobedience, not inaction as the author implies. Sitting down at segregated lunch counters is civil disobedience. Boycotting segregated businesses was civil disobedience. Marching through the South was civil disobedience. Claiming that those people who were beaten, set upon by police dogs, had fire hoses turned on them, had their churches bombed or murdered were "cowards" is a completely moronic statement that only shows your very real ignorance.

Sweet Cheeks's picture

So many words, so little understanding.

TimmyB's picture

Too many facts for ignorant people to grasp.

runningman18's picture

Pacifist activists today generally just march in large numbers because they think it is safe, then run away when the tear gas comes out.  They aren't even on par with the activists in Gandhi's day.  They are pussies.

TimmyB's picture

Again, bullshit. Marching in the street isn't civil disobedience. It's a fucking parade. Marching in the streets certainly isn't what peace activists, as opposed to well meaning supporters, are doing.

Ghostbusters's picture

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Mark Twain

Telling the truth is a conspiratorial act today. The ignorant masses praise Gandhi, Mandela, and MLk Jr as we were taught at public indoctrination centers aka schools, through our oligarchic governments, and their propaganda-arm media.  Finding your own version of history is more interesting, logical, and revealing in the context of today's 'global village'.  True intellectuals can see through the rubbish of 'liberal democracy' but they are very few the world over.  Most choose to regurgitate 'the facts' that they have been conditioned to repeat while confirming their cognitive dissonance and normalcy bias in the face of reality. 

Gandhi liberated India or maintained multinational control over its economy?  Gandhi united India or quelled a violent/threatening nationalist uprising in favor of a non-violent/non-threatening globalist multi-cultural society?  Unfortunately, Gandhi was also very close to the Brits(aka European Monarchs who control the United States of America Corp...just like Marx, Hitler, Trotsky, Lenin, and by extension Mao).

Nelson Mandela, humanitarian or corrupt internationalist?  (ask Anthony Sutton who financed communism and who the hell is Yossel Mashel Slovo and what is he doing in South African politics, hmmm?)  or

MLK Jr or Michael King?  Civil Rights Activist or International Communist pawn who destroyed another populist movement in favor of 'non-violent' (or non-threatening) resistance? (and who the hell is Stanley Levison)

Oh the ignorant masses.  “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."~A. Huxley (Measles kills!!! Help!! Save us oh dear and benevolent master!!!  Don't worry peasant, there's a 'safe' vaccine for that.  Just don't ask Vaccine Court)

"Ignorance is Strength."~E.A. Blair  "There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.” ~J.W. von Goethe

"To know that you do not know is the best.
To think you know when you do not is a disease.
Recognizing this disease as a disease is to be free of it."~Lao Tzu on the same line as Socrates

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."~H.L. Mencken

May anti-intellectualism be defeated and human spirituality be embraced in the name of self-defense as the attacks have not ceased in centuries.  May the people of North America recognize their past and rise up to confront the future as the last true bastion of seriously threatening resistance, that the world might unite under individualism and liberty for all.  The end is nigh and their plan is clear.

"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” (Impact of Science on Society, Page 50)~G.B. Shaw  ...the same sort of character and beliefs that might render physical self-defense impossible...

Self-defense is an inalienable human right and we are under attack through psyops, health care, the food supply, physical force and violence, taxation without representation aka legalized extortion, and the conspiracy has been more than successful but best leave it with William Wallace.

LetThemEatRand's picture

I would never advocate violence, because that would be wrong.

ThroxxOfVron's picture

I do advocate violence.  

It is right to defy oppression and counter violence with violence.

This is Fight Club.

August's picture

>>>While taking action from a position of love for one’s fellow man is indeed noble, it is sometimes not enough in the face of pure evil — the kind of evil inherent in the ranks of elitism and the globalist ideology.

Suddenly, I envision Thomas Friedman, a locked basement, and a coupla hard, pipe hittin' niggers with a pair of pliers and a blow torch.

European American's picture


I do advocate violence.  

It is right to defy oppression and counter violence with violence.

This is Fight Club.



No, this is not "Fight Club". The only blood you'll lose while hanging out here, is if you pass out from ingesting too many psychotropics, inhaling junk food and monster drinks, while sitting in the comforts of your cozy safe home, and nose dive into your keyboard. This idea to "defy oppression and counter violence with violence" is a noble claim, but just another broken record being played out at blogs like this. This attitude of "talking big" has become an infectioius dis-ease" running rampant all over the internet, ad nauseam. Who is really doing anything to counter their oppression, in a violent manner, other than those, like Dorner (tried).

I'll be the first to admit, I'm not interested in being a martyr by storming the White House (the ultimate symbolic hive of oppression) and getting the Revolution ball rolling. I'm hoping a patriotic rogue faction of the military takes care of that. Like almost everyone else, I'm taking the path of least resistance, even though, ironically, I've got a small arsenal at my disposal. Maybe that's exactly how TPTB have planned it. Everybody is waiting, getting mentally weaker, as they incrementally dismantle our abilities to take action and the fascist police state grows.


Maybe that's the problem; everyone is waiting for someone else to jump into the Fight Club ring to take care of business. Everyone is afraid of a little pain, or a lot of pain, or death, and so we just sit, in anticipation, waiting and watching the screen for "The Big Event" that may never come.

runningman18's picture

Bundy Ranch proved that the movement is not all talk.  We were on the verge of war right then and there.  The feds knew running away was their best option at the time.  It's all about opportunity and timing.  The founders had to go through a lot of pain before they finally found the opportunity to revolt.

TimmyB's picture

I'm fairly certain most people in this country are glad they have a government that prevents people like Bundy from doing what they want. Sorry, but most Americans are not going to rally around a cause like "we all should be able to take whatever we want from public lands and not pay for it."

Sweet Cheeks's picture

Obviously, you have never had your head stomped repeatedly or on second thought, maybe you did.