"stuffing mailboxes without stamps in violation of federal rules."
OMG!
Ironic how most people in the USA say they support "democracy", but when a group of people (with whom they disagree) decide to engage in political activism, those people are accused of "hijacking" politics and "subverting" the process.
Are they engaged in actively suppressing the majority? Election fraud? Voter intimidation?
If the majority of "the public" refuses to participate in politics, then why should the "will of the public" matter? If "the public" doesn't like it, what's preventing them from employing the exact same techniques that the FSP activists are using?
They're not attempting to conduct a f***ing experiment to prove something to outside observers! They are trying to create the sort of society that they would want to live in. It makes sense to start with a place that's somewhat in tune with their values. Jeesh.
Let's overlook the fact that European interventionism disrupted the natural development of African societies. You take a country in Africa, force the people to live under a brutal dictatorship until a civil war eventually topples the dictator. Then, subject the state to multiple foreign military invasions.
THIS is your anecdotal evidence to "prove" that libertarianism doesn't work and that people can't possibly self-organize?
I dare say that the Free State Project and New Hampshire liberty activists have accomplished more than the Libertarian party and many other "liberty" organizations. The NH activists have been engaging in steady civil disobedience on a number of fronts, suffering harassment and arrest from the government. I call that "fighting" for liberty. How much have you been doing to "fight"? Working within the state apparatus is just a side show. These folks have been working to make the government irrelevant.
This revelation brings up a very interesting question.
As you pointed out, the courts have refused to even HEAR the cases. The government arguments in "Clapper vs. Amnesty International"(SCOTUS) and the 2007 6th District appeals court case of "ACLU vs. NSA" was that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they were personally affected.
Now that we know that the government was collecting ALL telecommunications data, the plaintiffs in these cases can show that they (and everyone else) were indeed personally affected.
IANAL, but if this proceeds to criminal trial, there is a possibility that more details could emerge which demonstrate blatant criminal wrongdoing.
"Treason" is betraying The People and The Constitution. That's what the government is doing. This individual is just making us aware of the treason. He may be in breach of contract with his employer, but there is no "treason" here.
If this is just black helicopter paranoia, then this is a non-story. You admit the element of truth by claiming that harm has been done.
The people that really wish us ill, and do the most to inflict ill upon us, are the scumbags in the federal government.
Are you trying to argue that this information does not count as your personal information? How is it different from them searching through the phone bills in your desk?
If they have seized the data about every call to and from everyone's cell phones, the duration of the calls and location of the phones at the time of the call, they have done so without probable cause and without a warrant "particularly describing... the things to be seized"
I would contend that my call records are my personal information and clearly subject to Fourth Amendment protections.
The President, all members of the FISA court who approved of this, all members of Congress and the Senate who were briefed on it, and all government employees who knew about it and/or participated should face penalties.
Wonder how many federal government trolls get paid to spew BS on internet forums?
Several years ago, Obama cohort Cass Sunstein wrote a paper suggesting that government employees should do this in order to counter so-called "conspiracy theories".
"The United States of America" is NOT the federal government, it's We, The People. We empowered the federal government to do a job and put rules in place for them to follow. When they violate those rules, THEY are the ones guilty of treason. They betrayed their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
This guy is a hero for bringing this criminal behavior to the attention of The People.
See the recent SCOTUS case of "Clapper vs. Amnesty International" and the 2007 6th District appeals court case of "ACLU vs. NSA"
In both cases, the government has successfully argued that the plaintiffs lack "legal standing" to sue the NSA for its warrantless surveillance activity. They government and courts put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to demonstrate that they were "harmed" by the programs. The government also refuses to release information about WHO they targeted, so the plaintiffs have no way to obtain this proof.
These rulings are a travesty because the government can now circumvent the Constitution in any way that it wants. They just claim that their illegal activities are "secret". The courts then refuse to rule on the Constitutionality of the program and the illegal activity continues.
IANAL, but if it can be shown that the government is intercepting all of our data, wouldn't everyone have "legal standing" to challenge the activity? i.e. there's no longer a need to prove that anyone was specifically targeted because they targeted everyone.
Hopefully the benefits of the ban on conscription, requirement for a criminal indictment, double jeopardy clause, due process clause and property protection parts of the Fifth Amendment don't need further explanation.
The Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination reads:
"nor shall be COMPELLED in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" (emphasis added)
The benefit is that the government can't torture a confession out of you.
A "post scarcity society" is a theoretical construct which homo sapiens will probably never achieve. My comment is pertinent to the real world. Yes, if we all lived in The Culture our current economic system would not exist.
"the statement didn't detail the supposed inaccuracies, it explained why the monitoring described in those articles would, at least in theory, violate the law."
This scumbag is arguing that the allegations in the stories are inaccurate because the actions they describe would be in violation of THE LAW?
Since when does the government give a damn about following the law or holding its employees accountable for violations? The Bush wiretapping program was blatantly illegal under the original FISA law, the OTS helped banks back-date deposits to mask their insolvency, the ATF smuggles weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. The government openly murders U.S. citizens without charge or trial.
This guy is arguing that government would NEVER violate the law, therefore any allegations of criminal activity by the government must necessarily be false? LOL
Note: Paraphrased from my comment on Friday June 07, 2013 @09:07AM
I share your frustration with trying to work the system at the federal level, but just because your vote in federal elections doesn't count, and your DC representatives are unresponsive, do NOT give me this BS about how you can't do ANYTHING to effect change. Working federal elections IS a waste of time, but many state governments are pushing back against federal overreach. e.g. marijuana legalization, rejection of federal firearms laws, anti-NDAA legislation, etc. Maybe you CAN influence a local, state or county election.
If you can't participate in active protest, use your nerd skills to help people out with using Linux, TOR, encryption, MAC address spoofing, anonymous cell phones and other technical solutions for privacy. Maybe help flood the system with irrelevant data. You can also divert some of your financial resources to organizations fighting the fight on your behalf. I'm sure you know about EFF. You might also consider:
ACLU Tenth Amendment Center Young Americans for Liberty Center for Constitutional Rights EPIC
Yes, there is a deliberate effort on the part of the federal government to overwhelm us. Voting in federal elections is practically useless, but there are plenty of ways to resist.
Complete BS! You MAKE time for what's important to you!
Maybe you can't stop this program here and now, but this is hardly the only civil liberties abuse that this government is perpetrating. Every little thing you do helps out. Even if you can't actively participate in protests, you CAN lend support to the liberty movement in other ways.
If you're a nerd, offer to help people out with using Linux, TOR, encryption, MAC address spoofing, anonymous cell phones and other technical solutions for privacy. You can also divert some of your financial resources to organizations fighting the fight on your behalf. I'm sure you know about EFF. You might also consider:
ACLU Tenth Amendment Center Young Americans for Liberty Center for Constitutional Rights EPIC
I understand your frustration with trying to work the system at the federal level, but just because your vote in federal elections doesn't count, and your DC representatives are unresponsive, do NOT give me this BS about how you can't do ANYTHING to effect change. Working federal elections IS a waste of time, but many state governments are pushing back against federal overreach. e.g. marijuana legalization, rejection of federal firearms laws, anti-NDAA legislation, etc. Maybe you CAN influence a local, state or county election.
Those are just a few ideas. If you refuse to do anything, then it's obvious that you DON'T care.
Seems clear that the government views the American people as the real "threat". A threat to the power and privileges that they've granted themselves. Anyone that believes we should grant this government MORE power (e.g. to deal with "climate change", to get more involved with healthcare, to regulate free speech or to limit firearms freedom) needs to pay attention to stories like this and then spend some serious time examining their beliefs.
Do you think that "capitalism" itself or some cabal of elites within a system of capitalism is what pits people against each other? I tend to think of that as partially a result of hard-wired behavior. If you start out with the premise that you need to change human nature, or change everyone's viewpoint as a pre-condition to creating a better system, I think that entails force and violence or several generations of effort.
I like your idea of distributed ownership and a more "bottoms up" production system. I think that if we free ourselves of the oppression inflicted on us by the government, that "capitalism" would look much more like what you describe. It is the concentration of power in the hands of government and the use of that power to pick winners and losers in the economy which drives the concentration of wealth. Without bailouts, handouts, subsidies, legal immunity and other special privileges that government hands out to an elite few (most especially the money creation privilege), millions of people could free themselves of the dreary yoke you describe.
I dream of a better way, and I see government and bankers as the primary obstacles.
I don't foresee a time when my labour is worth nothing. Even if I'm doing subsistence-level farming, my work produces value.
I'd rather eke out a living that way than live life as a drone in an anonymous apartment with a government approved # of square meters, a government approved food ration, a government approved energy ration, etc. etc.
Robots are going to replace humans, so we need to force humans to be more robotic?
The "Liberty Dollar" wasn't a "threat" either, but they still shut it down, arrested the creator and likened his activity to "domestic terrorism". I kid you not. The Fed. prosecutor said that he was undermining the currency and equated it to "terrorism".
The banker-government's greatest power of all is their money monopoly. They stomp on these things HARD as soon as they become "noticeable" and long before they're even a mild threat.
There is no way to replace capitalism or free markets without using force and the threat of violence to scare every single human being into submission and eliminate those who won't submit. Then, you're right back to the system of haves(the enforcers) and have-nots(everyone else) that you were trying to replace.
> The government is completely corrupt and owned by wealthy special interests.
> Therefore, we need to give the government additional powers so that they will be less corrupt.
That makes no sense. You can't eliminate corruption by expanding the power of the corrupt entity. You need to take power AWAY from that entity so that regardless of their corruption, the harm that they can inflict on the people is limited. The Founders understood this. If you have a small, decentralized government with a set of strictly limited powers, then even the WORST people you put in office can't do much damage.
For example, suppose the federal government was strictly limited to spending 10% of GDP. Could Bush have started 2 wars? Could the government have spent $1T bailing out Wall St. banks? Too much government power in too few hands is what enables the worst abuses.
There's a difference between overthrowing the government and resisting a tyrannical government. The people who resist are NOT going to stand in a field, wear uniforms and put up a big flag identifying themselves.
The government won't impose their tyranny by carpet bombing cities. They'll attempt to kidnap or kill political dissidents and other undesirables. How do they do this? By sending their goons around to kick down doors in the middle of the night. Exactly when a firearm will be most effective. If they lose 1 or 2 goons for every 10 dissidents they go after, they will quickly run out of goons.
I think the government's next war against the American people will look very much like Syria, but the odds will be in favor of the people because the U.S. is a HUGE country.
The lower 48 states cover 8 million sq km. Syria is 187 THOUSAND sq km or 2.3% as large. How is the government going to deploy their 2 million man military (minus those needed overseas and minus those who defect to join the rebels) to occupy an 8M sq km country? One soldier to guard 5 sq km? LOL
I'm so tired of the stupid fucking argument that it's impossible for a lightly armed militia to fight the U.S. military because the military has drones, jet fighters, SAT intel, Abrams tanks, etc. History, even recent history, proves otherwise.
Look no further than AFGHANISTAN where a bunch of guys with rifles and improvised explosives have been fighting the world's most advanced military for 12 years! Now consider this:
Afghanistan 647,500 sq km 30 M people USA(lower 48) 8,080,464 sq km 306M people
What makes you think an advanced military is going to be more successful fighting against guys with rifles and IEDs in a country with 12X the land area and 10X the number of people? How many government buildings in that area? How would they even begin to deploy their forces to guard every single one of them.
Your ignorance is that you assume the resistance fighters would gather together in a group, identify themselves and try to fight military forces in a head to head clash of arms. That's idiotic. In a real scenario, they would operate in small groups, attack soft targets and then blend back in with the population. If the government forces tried to use their advanced weapons, they'd end up killing a bunch of innocent civilians, which only foments hatred against the government and fuels the insurgency.
If you need more food for thought, look at the time, resources and manpower the government expended on this Dorner guy in California. ONE GUY with a few firearms. Now imagine 100,000 Dorners spread all around the country. Where is government going to find the manpower to fight that? How are they going to finance this war on the American people when they are already bankrupt? The people fighting them sure as hell won't be paying taxes.
Then there's the question of how many soldiers and law enforcement officers will actually obey orders to shoot their fellow citizens.
We have the Second Amendment, not so that a group of yahoos can take over the government, but so a POPULAR uprising can resist and depose a tyrannical government.
For further reference:
"The War of the Flea" by Tabor "Understanding 4th Generation War" by William Lind
Slashdot Mirror
"...coopt the NH state government."
Right. By making it smaller and less intrusive.
Watch out! The libertarians are going to TAKE OVER ... and then leave you the hell alone.
"stuffing mailboxes without stamps in violation of federal rules."
OMG!
Ironic how most people in the USA say they support "democracy", but when a group of people (with whom they disagree) decide to engage in political activism, those people are accused of "hijacking" politics and "subverting" the process.
Are they engaged in actively suppressing the majority? Election fraud? Voter intimidation?
If the majority of "the public" refuses to participate in politics, then why should the "will of the public" matter? If "the public" doesn't like it, what's preventing them from employing the exact same techniques that the FSP activists are using?
They're not attempting to conduct a f***ing experiment to prove something to outside observers! They are trying to create the sort of society that they would want to live in. It makes sense to start with a place that's somewhat in tune with their values. Jeesh.
"failed African STATE" (emphasis added)
Let's overlook the fact that European interventionism disrupted the natural development of African societies. You take a country in Africa, force the people to live under a brutal dictatorship until a civil war eventually topples the dictator. Then, subject the state to multiple foreign military invasions.
THIS is your anecdotal evidence to "prove" that libertarianism doesn't work and that people can't possibly self-organize?
"It ain't working is it."
I dare say that the Free State Project and New Hampshire liberty activists have accomplished more than the Libertarian party and many other "liberty" organizations.
The NH activists have been engaging in steady civil disobedience on a number of fronts, suffering harassment and arrest from the government. I call that "fighting" for liberty. How much have you been doing to "fight"? Working within the state apparatus is just a side show. These folks have been working to make the government irrelevant.
This revelation brings up a very interesting question.
As you pointed out, the courts have refused to even HEAR the cases. The government arguments in "Clapper vs. Amnesty International"(SCOTUS) and the 2007 6th District appeals court case of "ACLU vs. NSA" was that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they could not demonstrate that they were personally affected.
Now that we know that the government was collecting ALL telecommunications data, the plaintiffs in these cases can show that they (and everyone else) were indeed personally affected.
IANAL, but if this proceeds to criminal trial, there is a possibility that more details could emerge which demonstrate blatant criminal wrongdoing.
"Treason" is betraying The People and The Constitution. That's what the government is doing. This individual is just making us aware of the treason. He may be in breach of contract with his employer, but there is no "treason" here.
If this is just black helicopter paranoia, then this is a non-story. You admit the element of truth by claiming that harm has been done.
The people that really wish us ill, and do the most to inflict ill upon us, are the scumbags in the federal government.
I totally disagree.
Are you trying to argue that this information does not count as your personal information? How is it different from them searching through the phone bills in your desk?
If they have seized the data about every call to and from everyone's cell phones, the duration of the calls and location of the phones at the time of the call, they have done so without probable cause and without a warrant "particularly describing ... the things to be seized"
I would contend that my call records are my personal information and clearly subject to Fourth Amendment protections.
The President, all members of the FISA court who approved of this, all members of Congress and the Senate who were briefed on it, and all government employees who knew about it and/or participated should face penalties.
Wonder how many federal government trolls get paid to spew BS on internet forums?
Several years ago, Obama cohort Cass Sunstein wrote a paper suggesting that government employees should do this in order to counter so-called "conspiracy theories".
"The United States of America" is NOT the federal government, it's We, The People. We empowered the federal government to do a job and put rules in place for them to follow. When they violate those rules, THEY are the ones guilty of treason. They betrayed their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
This guy is a hero for bringing this criminal behavior to the attention of The People.
See the recent SCOTUS case of "Clapper vs. Amnesty International" and the 2007 6th District appeals court case of "ACLU vs. NSA"
In both cases, the government has successfully argued that the plaintiffs lack "legal standing" to sue the NSA for its warrantless surveillance activity. They government and courts put the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to demonstrate that they were "harmed" by the programs. The government also refuses to release information about WHO they targeted, so the plaintiffs have no way to obtain this proof.
These rulings are a travesty because the government can now circumvent the Constitution in any way that it wants. They just claim that their illegal activities are "secret". The courts then refuse to rule on the Constitutionality of the program and the illegal activity continues.
IANAL, but if it can be shown that the government is intercepting all of our data, wouldn't everyone have "legal standing" to challenge the activity? i.e. there's no longer a need to prove that anyone was specifically targeted because they targeted everyone.
Hopefully the benefits of the ban on conscription, requirement for a criminal indictment, double jeopardy clause, due process clause and property protection parts of the Fifth Amendment don't need further explanation.
The Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination reads:
"nor shall be COMPELLED in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" (emphasis added)
The benefit is that the government can't torture a confession out of you.
A "post scarcity society" is a theoretical construct which homo sapiens will probably never achieve. My comment is pertinent to the real world. Yes, if we all lived in The Culture our current economic system would not exist.
"the statement didn't detail the supposed inaccuracies, it explained why the monitoring described in those articles would, at least in theory, violate the law."
This scumbag is arguing that the allegations in the stories are inaccurate because the actions they describe would be in violation of THE LAW?
Since when does the government give a damn about following the law or holding its employees accountable for violations?
The Bush wiretapping program was blatantly illegal under the original FISA law, the OTS helped banks back-date deposits to mask their insolvency, the ATF smuggles weapons to the Mexican drug cartels. The government openly murders U.S. citizens without charge or trial.
This guy is arguing that government would NEVER violate the law, therefore any allegations of criminal activity by the government must necessarily be false? LOL
Vote for them, but don't pretend that you're accomplishing anything by doing so.
Note: Paraphrased from my comment on Friday June 07, 2013 @09:07AM
I share your frustration with trying to work the system at the federal level, but just because your vote in federal elections doesn't count, and your DC representatives are unresponsive, do NOT give me this BS about how you can't do ANYTHING to effect change. Working federal elections IS a waste of time, but many state governments are pushing back against federal overreach. e.g. marijuana legalization, rejection of federal firearms laws, anti-NDAA legislation, etc. Maybe you CAN influence a local, state or county election.
If you can't participate in active protest, use your nerd skills to help people out with using Linux, TOR, encryption, MAC address spoofing, anonymous cell phones and other technical solutions for privacy. Maybe help flood the system with irrelevant data. You can also divert some of your financial resources to organizations fighting the fight on your behalf. I'm sure you know about EFF. You might also consider:
ACLU
Tenth Amendment Center
Young Americans for Liberty
Center for Constitutional Rights
EPIC
Yes, there is a deliberate effort on the part of the federal government to overwhelm us. Voting in federal elections is practically useless, but there are plenty of ways to resist.
Complete BS! You MAKE time for what's important to you!
Maybe you can't stop this program here and now, but this is hardly the only civil liberties abuse that this government is perpetrating. Every little thing you do helps out. Even if you can't actively participate in protests, you CAN lend support to the liberty movement in other ways.
If you're a nerd, offer to help people out with using Linux, TOR, encryption, MAC address spoofing, anonymous cell phones and other technical solutions for privacy. You can also divert some of your financial resources to organizations fighting the fight on your behalf. I'm sure you know about EFF. You might also consider:
ACLU
Tenth Amendment Center
Young Americans for Liberty
Center for Constitutional Rights
EPIC
I understand your frustration with trying to work the system at the federal level, but just because your vote in federal elections doesn't count, and your DC representatives are unresponsive, do NOT give me this BS about how you can't do ANYTHING to effect change. Working federal elections IS a waste of time, but many state governments are pushing back against federal overreach. e.g. marijuana legalization, rejection of federal firearms laws, anti-NDAA legislation, etc. Maybe you CAN influence a local, state or county election.
Those are just a few ideas. If you refuse to do anything, then it's obvious that you DON'T care.
Seems clear that the government views the American people as the real "threat". A threat to the power and privileges that they've granted themselves.
Anyone that believes we should grant this government MORE power (e.g. to deal with "climate change", to get more involved with healthcare, to regulate free speech or to limit firearms freedom) needs to pay attention to stories like this and then spend some serious time examining their beliefs.
Do you think that "capitalism" itself or some cabal of elites within a system of capitalism is what pits people against each other? I tend to think of that as partially a result of hard-wired behavior. If you start out with the premise that you need to change human nature, or change everyone's viewpoint as a pre-condition to creating a better system, I think that entails force and violence or several generations of effort.
I like your idea of distributed ownership and a more "bottoms up" production system. I think that if we free ourselves of the oppression inflicted on us by the government, that "capitalism" would look much more like what you describe. It is the concentration of power in the hands of government and the use of that power to pick winners and losers in the economy which drives the concentration of wealth. Without bailouts, handouts, subsidies, legal immunity and other special privileges that government hands out to an elite few (most especially the money creation privilege), millions of people could free themselves of the dreary yoke you describe.
I dream of a better way, and I see government and bankers as the primary obstacles.
I don't foresee a time when my labour is worth nothing. Even if I'm doing subsistence-level farming, my work produces value.
I'd rather eke out a living that way than live life as a drone in an anonymous apartment with a government approved # of square meters, a government approved food ration, a government approved energy ration, etc. etc.
Robots are going to replace humans, so we need to force humans to be more robotic?
"Because bitcoin is such a threat..."
The "Liberty Dollar" wasn't a "threat" either, but they still shut it down, arrested the creator and likened his activity to "domestic terrorism". I kid you not. The Fed. prosecutor said that he was undermining the currency and equated it to "terrorism".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Dollar
The banker-government's greatest power of all is their money monopoly. They stomp on these things HARD as soon as they become "noticeable" and long before they're even a mild threat.
There is no way to replace capitalism or free markets without using force and the threat of violence to scare every single human being into submission and eliminate those who won't submit.
Then, you're right back to the system of haves(the enforcers) and have-nots(everyone else) that you were trying to replace.
Your argument boils down to:
> The government is completely corrupt and owned by wealthy special interests.
> Therefore, we need to give the government additional powers so that they will be less corrupt.
That makes no sense. You can't eliminate corruption by expanding the power of the corrupt entity. You need to take power AWAY from that entity so that regardless of their corruption, the harm that they can inflict on the people is limited. The Founders understood this. If you have a small, decentralized government with a set of strictly limited powers, then even the WORST people you put in office can't do much damage.
For example, suppose the federal government was strictly limited to spending 10% of GDP. Could Bush have started 2 wars? Could the government have spent $1T bailing out Wall St. banks? Too much government power in too few hands is what enables the worst abuses.
There's a difference between overthrowing the government and resisting a tyrannical government. The people who resist are NOT going to stand in a field, wear uniforms and put up a big flag identifying themselves.
The government won't impose their tyranny by carpet bombing cities. They'll attempt to kidnap or kill political dissidents and other undesirables. How do they do this? By sending their goons around to kick down doors in the middle of the night. Exactly when a firearm will be most effective. If they lose 1 or 2 goons for every 10 dissidents they go after, they will quickly run out of goons.
I think the government's next war against the American people will look very much like Syria, but the odds will be in favor of the people because the U.S. is a HUGE country.
The lower 48 states cover 8 million sq km. Syria is 187 THOUSAND sq km or 2.3% as large. How is the government going to deploy their 2 million man military (minus those needed overseas and minus those who defect to join the rebels) to occupy an 8M sq km country? One soldier to guard 5 sq km? LOL
I'm so tired of the stupid fucking argument that it's impossible for a lightly armed militia to fight the U.S. military because the military has drones, jet fighters, SAT intel, Abrams tanks, etc. History, even recent history, proves otherwise.
Look no further than AFGHANISTAN where a bunch of guys with rifles and improvised explosives have been fighting the world's most advanced military for 12 years! Now consider this:
Afghanistan 647,500 sq km 30 M people
USA(lower 48) 8,080,464 sq km 306M people
What makes you think an advanced military is going to be more successful fighting against guys with rifles and IEDs in a country with 12X the land area and 10X the number of people? How many government buildings in that area? How would they even begin to deploy their forces to guard every single one of them.
Your ignorance is that you assume the resistance fighters would gather together in a group, identify themselves and try to fight military forces in a head to head clash of arms. That's idiotic. In a real scenario, they would operate in small groups, attack soft targets and then blend back in with the population. If the government forces tried to use their advanced weapons, they'd end up killing a bunch of innocent civilians, which only foments hatred against the government and fuels the insurgency.
If you need more food for thought, look at the time, resources and manpower the government expended on this Dorner guy in California. ONE GUY with a few firearms. Now imagine 100,000 Dorners spread all around the country. Where is government going to find the manpower to fight that? How are they going to finance this war on the American people when they are already bankrupt? The people fighting them sure as hell won't be paying taxes.
Then there's the question of how many soldiers and law enforcement officers will actually obey orders to shoot their fellow citizens.
We have the Second Amendment, not so that a group of yahoos can take over the government, but so a POPULAR uprising can resist and depose a tyrannical government.
For further reference:
"The War of the Flea" by Tabor
"Understanding 4th Generation War" by William Lind