Where nonviolence ends

I've always been a big fan of the nonviolence approach Gandhi employed.  It is amazingly powerful and can be used for a wide array of situations.  The idea is you expose those people who are stomping on your freedom as the violent sociopaths they are.  You do this by remaining calm, dignified, peaceful, and yet disobedient.  The psychos who wish to control you will then you violence and force against you, and the world will see them for who they are - desperate miscreants.  You remain the dignified, mature party who is steadfast and resolve, and does not out of desperation reach for the tool of violence.

Gandhi once said that the Jews in Nazi Germany should voluntarily march into the camps.  This always bothered me deeply.  I came to realize the other night that Gandhi and his people outnumbered their aggressors greatly.  As Gandhi pointed out, a few hundred thousand British could not rule hundreds of millions of Indians.  I wonder if Gandhi did not see this gaping difference between the Indians under the British and the Jews under the Nazis.

Gandhi said, "... the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.....It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany.... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.” I am not clear as to whether Gandhi was saying that the Jews should have committed suicide instead of being killed by the Nazis, or surrendered themselves to be killed by refusing to obey other orders given.  Civil disobedience was key to Gandhi's philosophy.

If I am not mistaken, the compliance level was pretty high with the Jewish population.  There was some resistance, and there were some efforts to escape (some luckily successful!).  But there was also a lot of obedient compliance.  I don't think this served them well.  I would have much rather seen each and every one fight as best they could.  Had they all known what was to be their fate, perhaps more would have fought.

We are lucky to be able to learn from history.  The plight of the Jews under the heinous rule of Nazi Germany is one of the foundations of my belief in civilian ownership, carry, and proficiency with arms, including battle rifles.  An armed and battle-competent Jewish population would not have been rounded up onto train cars.  "They would have just been shot sooner," some might argue.  Perhaps, but it isn't as easy to go door-to-door and shoot people as you may think, when they have a gun on the other side and the advantage of knowing the layout of the room.  At least they would have stood a chance, and the cost to attempt to shoot them would have been great.

When thugs are roaming around executing your neighbors, you can respond appropriately from your roof, from your hallway, from your window, from the side of your building, etc.  The German people liked the idea of the Jews being "relocated" but would have not had the same feelings about them being executed in front of their eyes.  It's one thing to delude yourself into believing the Jews are just being relocated somewhere and still allowed to live out their lives.  It is another to see and hear the screams and gunshots, the bodies and blood.

So, I believe Gandhi was wrong about the Jews in Nazi Germany.  So we also see that both nonviolence and violence have their place.  Some things are worth fighting for.  Some basic freedoms such as being able to move about freely and buy and sell (lockdowns anyone?), the freedom to speak and practice a religion or beliefs, the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers, the right to be secure in your home and your person, the right to own and carry arms, including battle arms, and many more.  So many more that we cannot list them.  Some of these are worth fighting for.

A nonviolent "fight" or campaign can bring about substantial change very rapidly.  One of today's equivalents is filming.  Every day people are filming the police and other government workers.  This is great, as these people are often just showing the world how lost or clueless they've become.  It shows the world their true nature of tyranny and violence - a campaign of terror and subjugation against ordinary people.  I am very encouraged by these videos - they have already and continue to change policing and the exercise of freedoms in the USA.

The USA is more comparable to India.  The people outnumber the "government" so to speak.  I see the opportunity for nonviolence to be absolutely incredible in bringing about further positive change.  It will require the disobedience aspect as well.

So when could it potentially be time for violence in the USA?  That's anyone's guess and something we must all ask ourselves.  I strongly do suggesting having certain lines in the sand, so to speak, and be ready and prepared to act upon them.  Examples could be: "I will not have my firearms confiscated from me," "I will not allow myself and my family to be 'relocated,' against my will," "I will not be 'drafted' into a foreign war by politicians who won't be fighting," "I will not subject myself to unwanted medical procedures/treatment," etc.  These could be instances in which an individual may decide it better to employ violence to stop the aggression.  One might also decide to employ violence on behalf of another for some reason.

Or perhaps more similar to the American Revolution, it will be something that crops up as a group effort.  A group of armed modern-day Americans could decide to physically defend something.  Should a battle break out, perhaps others would join in and decide it's to take advantage of the opportunity and eliminate some perceived as enemies to the People and freedom.  Another possibility is a repeat of Jan 6th either on some state level or the federal level, but this time bearing arms.  The People would be the active party, in this example, and the government workers would be the reactive party.  The People could demand that everyone evacuate the area or building, and let them know they have been dismissed from their positions permanently, and warn them that failure to surrender and vacate the premises will result in siege to take back what belongs to the People.

It is always by consent we are governed.  The moment consent is withdrawn, governance is illegitimate.  Governments that rule using violence and fear (such as selective enforcement, the cruel practice of solitary confinement and lengthy, disproportionate or prison sentences) are by definition tyrannical.  Terrorism is the use of great fear to effect political change.  King George and his redcoats were terrorists.  But then so were those who rose up and decided to fight, according to others.  It just depends on who you believe.  Are today's FBI, ATF, CIA, IRS, etc similar to the redcoats?  Are they fedcoats?  Is our president ruling like a monarch, making and signing rules without congress (executive orders)?  These are questions Americans must answer.

How many gun owners do you know who practice in a militia?  How many staunch Second Amendment advocates do?  I myself have never practice in a militia as of writing this.  I've only met 1 man who was part of one in all my years of working to advance the 2nd Amendment.  That's a pretty remarkable statement.  We could also say for those who actually are in a militia - how many times has the militia been mustered and actually used?  How many times did the militia stop terror from happening against citizens by the government?

For years I was focused on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  I was focused on rights.  Rights, rights, rights.  But with rights come responsibilities.  The first part of the 2nd Amendment spells it out plainly for all to see:
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State..." This is calling us to our responsibility.  It doesn't just say "The right of the people to keep in bear arms is necessary for the security of a free state and, therefore, shall not be infringed."  Owning and even carrying is not enough.  It is saying well-disciplined militias are NECESSARY.  It doesn't say good, advantageous, recommended, optimal, or any other nonsense.  It says necessary.

Would we have fewer problems if we had local militias who could intervene and prevent and stop madness?  Would we have gun confiscations and mayhem due to a hurricane?  Would we have an army laying siege to a church/cult and killing nearly everyone inside?(1)  Would we have widespread lockdowns enforced by police?  Would we have family's in their homes being sieged and killed by troops and snipers?(2)  Maybe there would be fewer raids of parents who stand up and speak and their school board meetings.  We definitely wouldn't have ridiculous enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun laws (the federal government has no delegated authority to produce gun laws - no police powers).  Interstate commerence and general welfare are not a carte blanche delegation of power to the federal government.  Outlawing suppressors, automatic-fire weapons, shotguns of certain sizes, etc is not something the federal government actually has the authority to do.  It would be left up to the states, and even then it would be highly-suspect since the people have a right and that right shall not be infringed.

So where does nonviolence end?  It is not a question I can answer for you.  It is a question I continually must work with for myself.  Being prepared is important, knowing what you will do when is very important.  Think and prepare ahead of time, so you are ready in case the worst happens.  Prepare for the worst, and hope for the best.  It is something you must answer yourself, and something you must continually work at and redefine.  Stay prepared.