Secession, the Second Amendment and Sun Tzu

In the 6th Century BC, Chinese warrior Sun Tzu wrote “The Art of War.” It has been the definitive treatise on waging war for 26 centuries now. Only thirteen chapters, it was translated first in 1782 when a French Jesuit priest living in China, Joseph Amiot, acquired a copy of it, and translated it into French. Subsequent translations have honed the text into English.

The book is available for free through The Gutenberg Project at: The Art of War I strongly recommend this short read, as the truth can be used in many areas of human interaction.

For this article, I shall concentrate on his writings about waging war by deception. Here are some of his thoughts.

Chapter 1:18 All war is based on deception.
Chapter 2:2 Supreme excellence consists in breaking the
enemy’s resistance without fighting.
Chapter 2:18 If you know the enemy and know
yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If
you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you
will also suffer a defeat.
Chapter 6:8 That general is skillful in attack whose opponent
does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose
opponent does not know what to attack.
Chapter 6:9 O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we
learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy’s fate in our hands.
Chapter 6:12 If we do not wish to fight, we can prevent the enemy
from engaging us even though the lines of our encampment be
merely traced out on the ground. All we need do is to throw
something odd and unaccountable in his way.

The general concept that I want you to take away from these verses is that in order to win many battles, you must keep your enemy off balance, deceived and confused about your strategies and tactics. If you can attack him at many weak points, he will have to respond, and therefore, you control both the location and the tempo of the battle. This will be important in the thoughts and questions below.

I’ve been writing lately about secession and the well-regulated militia, and how they should be inextricably tied to one another. From the reactions I’m receiving from readers, this concept seems to be somewhat new to them.

Specifically, I and other writers have referred to the truest meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states: “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

How many millions of words have been written about the Second Amendment?

Starting with the 1856 Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court, to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and up to this day, Americans have seen infringement upon infringement piled upon them. But, do you remember in your lifetime hearing of ANY of those regulations that dealt with the security of a Free State?

Could it be that the arguments made over the last 150 years about gun control… the laws and regulations passed by states and the Federal government…and any talk about personal safety, crime prevention, hunting and sport shooting…have been a clever diversion away from the clear intention of the words of the Second Amendment?

Think about it from a purely tactical viewpoint. If you and I are in an argument about a certain topic, and I can get you to engage in a related topic that looks important, but completely diverts you from the real issue, I’ve won. I can drag you around by your nose ring for as long as you want to argue about what matters LEAST. Meanwhile, I can do pretty much what I want in regard to the real issue.

It is the same as General Tzu’s admonition to attack the enemy where he is weakest, combined with his recommendations to attack at multiple weak locations simultaneously. The enemy will expend itself defending its weak points while you conquer.

Isn’t this what Washington and most of the states have done? They have enacted gun legislation and regulations that force citizens to challenge them in the very courts that the tyrants control. Meanwhile, the politicians subtly changed our states and our nation.

The Second Amendment is the effort of the Founders to guarantee that the sovereign states would have a mechanism whereby the states might thwart Federal tyranny through armed resistance, if only as a last resort. Now, there is nothing in the Amendment about any “last resort.” Common sense dictates that all efforts to settle any difference would proceed peaceably first. And, when a well-regulated state militia is a day-to-day reality, it acts as a deterrent merely by its existence. Thugs seldom attack armed people.

Go ask Switzerland if a militia works. They haven’t been invaded since Napoleon, over 200 years ago.

Washington and the state legislatures have bleached out the reality of the well-regulated state militia from the American fabric. Meanwhile, Americans have been hoodwinked into fighting about whether or not they can carry a gun with or without a permit, or packing heat in a bar or restaurant. While those turf wars raged, Washington absorbed the sovereignty of the states, and made the states into serfdoms.

So, can you now see that because “A well-regulated Militia…is…necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?”

States need to reclaim their sovereignty by revitalizing their state militias. Through the militia, states will once again gain their true freedom to regulate the Federal Government that once was their servant. And, in the failure of the exertion of state sovereignty to control the actions of Washington, the unhappy states may secede knowing that they are capable of defending their decision from all who would attempt to use force to prevent their exit.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

© Copyright 2009, Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

10 Responses to Secession, the Second Amendment and Sun Tzu

  1. Mr. Longcore, would you like to comment on the question of what the state militia is? That is, is it a public militia under the authority of the state and/or county governments, a private entity (corresponding to the Founders’ understand that the militia = “the people” defined as men of a certain age bracket capable of bearing arms), or some combination of the two?

    What if the state considers any private militia formed within its border to be nothing more than a gathering of armed and dangerous whackos, “potential terrorists” worthy only of the scrutiny of its “fusion center” and other state and local law enforcement authorities? What then?

    • dumpdc says:

      The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft).

      I suppose the state can marginalize private militia companies or dismiss them. But the private militias are simply going to join the state militia anyway.

  2. Ole “Snaggle-Tooth” You just took the thought right out of my head. (which is pretty easy, considering what’s not up there HA!)
    Russ this would be a perfect follow-up to this posting, by doing a segment on Mr. Jone’s suggestion.
    With your permission, and acknowledging your authorship. I am going to ask Ryan to start a segment in our web/blog site featuring your postings, especially this last one.

    • dumpdc says:

      Mr. Curmudgeon- You certainly have my permission to reprint.

      • Lumpyoatmeal says:

        Hey, this is Ryan, Chairman of LBCCS. Paul has been raving about DumpDC for a while and I am pretty darn impressed myself. Thanks for getting this important information out. We have linked to you at LBCCS and will be linking to select articles of yours there also. Thanks again. Let’s continue this fight together.

  3. Thanks, Old Allentown Curmudgeon. And nice blog. I plan to link it at mine.

    Regarding the question at hand, I think maybe constitutional scholar Steve Halbrook’s “That Every Man Be Armed” might shed some light. I seem to remember some discussion in that book of private militias anyway.

    There’s a balance that needs to be struck here, I think. On the one hand, we need to guard against the proliferation of the kind of private militia that isn’t answerable to anything other than it’s own loony conspiracy theory ideology. (This is not to say that there are not political conspiracies afoot, only that some theories have gone off the deep end.) On the other hand, we need to reject the notion that the state militia is the National Guard, which is nothing more than a state standing army subject to Federal authority. Such a “militia” is no militia at all in the constitutional sense.

    A sober state militiaman who is informed by the kind of republicanism reflected by this blog and others will *necessarily desire* to work in concert with, and even under the authority of, the sheriff and the governor, in that order. But if the sheriff and the governor are merely unthinking pawns of a corrupt Federal government, well, that’s a different story. Hence my dilemma.

    I look forward to whatever further discusson unfolds here.

  4. JOHN T says:

    I would suggest that what we have done here in Montana, may represent the last admonition, Chapter 6:12, in your blog. The only known response has been from BATF, in a petulant letter to FFL holders. The games have, of course, begun but other states have picked up this ball. Odd how the 10th Amendment my be our strongest defense.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: