Burns Chronicles No 9 – Civil Defiance or Submission?

Burns Chronicles No 9
Civil Defiance or Submission?

firing-squad

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 18, 2016

“But that it was clear that no act they [the state legislature] could pass, could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, because if they could do this, they would at the same instant of time destroy their own existence as a legislature and dissolve the government thereby established.”

Bayard v. Singleton, 1 N.C. 42 (1787) [North Carolina Supreme Court]

The unfortunate circumstances of January 26, 2016, which resulted in the death of LaVoy Finicum and the arrest of Ammon Bundy, Ryan Payne, Ryan Bundy, and Brian Cavalier was a blow to an effort to expose the dishonesty of the federal government in its pursuit of acquiring land belonging to ranchers in Oregon.

In fact, the story behind what happened in Burns, Oregon actually goes much further. It had begun to show the underbelly of the beast we call the US government, its failure in obedience to the Constitution, the very document that created it, and its failure to abide by established judicial “due process of law”. Perhaps most significant is its absolute disregard for human life, and especially so if that life is of one who believes in the Constitution.

Now, many have said that what was happening at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was of no concern to them. Some have said, “We (the militia) are here to protect our state. What happens in Oregon is not our concern.” And, they are right, but only to an extent.

In the hours that followed the events at Lexington Green and Concord, in Massachusetts Bay Colony, Militia from Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York, marched on dirt roads to come to the aid of those from another colony. Within days, many more colonies had sent their forces to join those surrounding Boston. Of course, it was not their concern, though they did realize what had happened in Massachusetts would, eventfully, happen in their own backyards.

Many have stated that their greatest concern is that the government will come to take their guns, and that will be the time to act. However, they fail to respond to the slow and meticulous erosion of the Second Amendment, constantly progressing, bit by bit. But, they still have their guns, so there is nothing to worry about.

However, just a week after the Indictments were issued in Oregon, a Grand Jury in Nevada issued Indictments against five people who were involved in events at the Bundy Ranch, in Nevada, in April 2014, nearly two years prior.

Both acts, Nevada and Oregon, were acts of Civil Defiance. Let’s be clear about that term. Civil Disobedience is a term applicable to participating in something that might result in ones arrest, or perhaps being assaulted by law enforcement. These activities are conducted with the hope of political change. They are, at best, inconveniences.

Civil Defiance, however, is an act in real defiance against unlawful authority. Whether firearms are used actively, or passively, there is no doubt that Civil Defiance has the possibility for not just incarceration, but death.

During the Bundy Ranch affair, hundreds of armed patriots stood defiant against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) employees and contractors who were trying to arrest cattle for grazing on public lands. The patriot weapons were simply for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. BLM was the aggressor, with force of arms and a “judge’s edict”.

In Oregon, once again, the patriots’ arms were for self-defense, fully in compliance with the Second Amendment. There is no instance of those at the Refuge, or away from the Refuge, ever threatening or intimidating anyone. In fact, they had a policy to let anyone venture into the occupied area, without threat, or harm. Their arms were for self-defense.

The government, in this instance, under the control of the FBI, was the aggressor, however, unlike Nevada, the aggressor chose to shoot and kill LaVoy Finicum. As can be clearly seen in the aerial footage, Mr. Finicum never had a gun in his hand. He was lured into an ambush and shot. He had no opportunity to defend himself, even if he had been armed. Quite simply, the government that he was exposing murdered him.

So, let’s put a little perspective on things. Whether you are in Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, or elsewhere, what you have been reading about is your future, as much as those who have been directly affected by those events. To “reason” that “it didn’t happen to me” is both acceptance of the legitimacy of the government’s proven practice, and submission to it. When it finally gets to you, those who had more courage than you, have already been taken by the forces of government, either to prison, or to the cemetery.

If you cannot stand up for your fellow patriots, and instead, make excuses as to why you did not come to their aid, whether by location or disagreement of purpose, then you have submitted, and you can clearly see your own future.

I was asked the question “Is there anything that we can do about this?” After some thought, I realized that the Indictment from Nevada was a message that the government is in the process of taking control. This raises the question as to whether we can back them down. If more of us begin standing up by occupying federally owned facilities, like the Refuge, or by taking other inspired actions, can we demonstrate that we are not backing down; that we are not willing to Submit to their unconstitutional activities, and that we will retaliate, as they have, by expanding our efforts in response to every unlawful or unconstitutional act committed by the government?

“In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!”

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

11 Comments

  1. MatthewP503 says:

    Can you explain the picture for me?

  2. 15Fixer says:

    Outstanding!!! I have been following your series of articles, and they are superb. I especially like this one. I hope and pray this opens eyes and minds, and shows the uncommitted they are in danger also. Let’s not even add in the unexpected demise of Justice Scalia…

  3. Doug says:

    Your right Gary, right about all of it.
    We are all certainly committed, like the pig, whether we wish it or not, whether we believe in liberty or not. Every one of us.

  4. Seth Miller says:

    You write “If you cannot stand up for your fellow patriots, and instead, make excuses as to why you did not come to their aid, whether by location or disagreement of purpose, then you have submitted…”.

    I do not intend any disrespect, yet I disagree with this statement.

    I do not consider these people to be “fellow patriots” and I disagree with their goals and tactics. This does not mean that I have “submitted” to anything, and here’s why:

    Imagine a group of people are convinced that the local police force has been replaced by look-alike aliens, so they take over and barricade themselves inside a Taco Bell. They announce they need help, and they declare, “If you do not assist your fellow humans because you don’t believe in our cause, you are submitting to the aliens.”

    Neither of us would likely rush to their side. And neither of us would feel we have submitted to aliens, although the Taco Bell occupiers would disagree.

    Probably, we would ask for proof of their assertions and determine the reliability of the evidence. If we still disagreed, they would probably consider us either: a) too ignorant to understand the situation; b) sadly confused or misled by forces and people who don’t believe in aliens; c) brainwashed by the pro-alien community; or d) part of the pro-alien, anti-police conspiracy.

    No amount of discussion or explication would change their or our positions and beliefs.

    Still, neither of us would feel that we submitted to the aliens. We would simply say, “Let’s eat somewhere else. Those Taco Bell people are not in touch with reality, and even though I wanted a gordita, they sound unpredictable and potentially dangerous.”

  5. […] would I bring this up? Well, a number of comments have come to me regarding my article, “Civil Defiance or Submission?” Many have suggested that they are III%er, and their duty is strictly […]

  6. […] No. 7: What is Brandon Curtiss? Burns Chronicles No. 8: Active Patriots v. Passive Patriots Burns Chronicles No. 9: Civil Defiance or Submission? Burns Chronicles No. 10: Is There a Peaceful Solution? – Redux Burns Chronicles No. 11: What are […]

  7. […] Burns Chronicles No 7 – What is Brandon Curtiss? Burns Chronicles No 9 – Civil Defiance or Submission? […]

  8. […] However, those who have to propagate the articles have taken a first step in civil defiance (See Burns Chronicles No 9 – Civil Defiance or Submission?). A much more definitive statement to the government is that, not just me, but We, will not […]

Leave a Reply