Depends on the goal
The LA Times: Dorner case shows folly of arming oneself to combat government.
If the goal is to terrorize the population and build distrust in the police, I think it worked.
15 Responses to “Depends on the goal”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 17th, 2013 at 4:29 pm
If Dorner had had a few buddies delivering rounds to the back plates of these who fried him, I don’t think the LA times would be crowing so loud.
Funny how they see such scenarios always being linear combat against holed up lone wolves.
They make the false assumption that the oppressor will always be in control of the fight, right down to the time and place.
Think about this:
The United States has more combat experienced veterans in the population that at any time since post WWII. They are all veterans of asymmetric warfare. They know how to get outside the wire.
The LA times says resistance is futile in the same breath they advocate taking those tools of resistance.
February 17th, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Folly? He was pretty successful for being batshit insane and screwing up by the numbers. If he hadn’t put out that manifesto and hadn’t taken shots at those cops he just randomly ran across, they probably would still be trying to figure out who he was. Think of a DC sniper type MO vs. cops, done with restraint and patience.
Not even counting the vets, there are lots of currently law-abiding gun owners with the kind of planning ability, restraint, and patience needed to wage a devastating campaign against .gov backed oppression, if it should ever become necessary.
February 17th, 2013 at 4:49 pm
Excluding Dorner’s earlier victims – the ones he caught wholly unprepared – Dorner managed to kill one and injure another before he was neutralized.
That sort of ‘folly’ on the scale of dozens, much less hundreds, would quickly prove an existential threat to any organized police force.
Consent of the governed proving more and more essential every day.
February 17th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Let’s let an active duty senior NCO spell out the reality of what gun confiscation or would be like:
http://youtu.be/9SpBThSH97Y
February 17th, 2013 at 7:23 pm
Folly? Did they not see the cops running around gunning down everything that moved? That it took a week to get him? Now imagine someone who isn’t nuts, who planned this out weeks in advanced, and who was determine to cause as much damage as possible. Then imagine 1000, or 10,000 someones. Good luck with that.
Our society functions because of voluntary compliance to the rule of law by a overwhelming majority. Once a minority starts deciding not to comply, things get back quick.
February 17th, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Skelton is a fool. At least I can take comfort that his platform for propaganda the Los Angeles Times is dying a slow death. It is karmic justice for the incalculable damage the Los Angeles Times has inflicted on California public policy over the past few decades.
As for the the possibility of successful armed resistance, just look at the damage and chaos that one single man inflicted on the LAPD. One man. Now imagine instead of one man, it was four men, or forty men, or 400 men! Skelton has an amazing lack of imagination.
February 17th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
If he hadn’t published the manifesto would they have known who he was?
February 17th, 2013 at 8:53 pm
Replace nutcase Dorner with a committed ideologue, who is just as violent, and chooses to operate anonymously.
Start to look a bit more scary, doesn’t it?
February 17th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
I wonder…are the police the “standing army” about which the Framers were concerned? It was the British Army that enforced the laws. THAT was the concern. Our military does not and is apolitical. Enforcement by gov’t control armed forces was the concern.
February 17th, 2013 at 11:59 pm
“I wonder…are the police the “standing army” about which the Framers were concerned?”
The simple fact that they, the police, routinely refer to non-police as ‘civilians’
What would be the modern analog of ‘quartering troops’ prohibited in the 3rd?
I can imagine any technological proxy or regulatory mandated self-reporting (prior restraint) is functionally equivalent to putting a soldier in someone’s home to ensure the citizens compliance, and therefore violates the 3rd.
February 18th, 2013 at 12:48 am
I’m pretty sure that if one guy can tie up virtually all of the law enforcement resources of the state of Californa with three attacks, if there was a squad of 12 guys conducting attacks, the entire state would go (even more) batshit crazy and melt completely down.
If anything, they’ve taught us that shooting random citizens does nothing (DC snipers) but if you shoot a couple of cops, the state completely loses it’s shit.
February 18th, 2013 at 1:06 am
During a conversation with some like-minded friends over how the EOTWAWKI would play out a participant wondered aloud if the cops and soldiers would be our biggest threat. I thought a second before responding “Soldiers swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States which, I believe, most take quite seriously, and are trained to minimize civilian casualties.”
“Cops are taught to kill civillians.”
February 18th, 2013 at 2:45 am
I’m thinking if he’d had a second vehicle stashed where he burned his truck, they’d still be looking for him.
BTW, when you’re running, it seems pretty foolish to start a “Look for me around here” fire.
February 18th, 2013 at 6:43 am
LE agencies, and especially LAPD, will examine the Dorner incident. They will, as a result, become better at dealing with any future Christopher Dorners.
I seriously doubt they’ll encounter another Christopher Dorner.
And, while law enforcement agencies will learn from it, everyone else already has, and I’d wager “everyone else” can adapt faster and better than any bureaucracy. As Joe said a couple weeks ago, “there is an experiment in progress in southern California.”
February 18th, 2013 at 11:39 am
The problem here, is that when these guys get fed up with the system, only one of them does.
Its not like we have a patriot alarm bell that goes off and tell us it is time to resist a tyrannical government with force. How do we know when the cops surround a buddy’s house what it is really for?
Ive heard the old saying if you think its time to stand, grab your rifle and go outside. If you are the only one, go back inside.