PDA

View Full Version : What would it take to push you to Rebellion?


johnwilliamson062
January 30, 2009, 09:59 AM
So our founding fathers, who are sometimes referred to by historians as the rebellious babies, declared independence b/c of much lower tax rates etc. than we now face because they were imposed without representation.

I think almost all would agree that at present there is no reason to form a rebellion, at least not against the national government. There are some arguments for California, NY, NJ, where I might not exactly jump on board, but I would have to admit it was probably worse situation than our founding fathers faced, except for the representation part. I don't think the situation warrants rebellion, but I would have trouble arguing against it and winning absolutely. I think the American revolution happened primarily b/c the lack of representation/respect, lets face it, no one likes being TOLD what to do even if they agree with what is being said. There is a reason it did not happen in 1607 and rather 169 years later even though the status of representation did not change.

So here is my question:
Lets say a convention is meeting in your state capitol to declare independence, what would it take for you to sign?

For me it would have to be a national ban on firearms. Likely handguns or rifles as I know the importance of both in Revolution. I don't really feel the need to truly exercise my 2nd amendment right unless there is an attempt to remove it.

I think this is important to discuss, because like many hard decisions in life, if you don't make your decision before the question is asked I think most just choose the easiest route.

Huey Long
January 30, 2009, 10:50 AM
I was pushed to that point long ago. I'm just waiting for a general to follow or an army to lead.

BlueTrain
January 30, 2009, 11:18 AM
You probably won't like this but here goes anyway.

I am from the only state that broke away from another state over the issue of seccession, namely West Virginia, though it took a couple of years to happen. Another state also threatened to secede from the Confederacy. So to an extent, once it starts, there might be no stopping it. After all, the same principles seem to apply. And another thing, all revolutions, successful or unsuccessful, increase the power of governments. That isn't what you had in mind, was it?

The American War of Independence, revolutionary though it may have been, was not a revolution in the same sense that the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution were and it was hardly a civil war. The leaders of the American Revolution were pretty much the leaders before and after the way. It was the gentry who led that revolution.

Now, today, it may be that successful, talented, etc, people are being robbed of their freedom and dignity but to me it doesn't seem much like the rich are so much affected. Perhaps it is time for a revolution, only not for the reasons you may think.

On the subject of the Archduke's assasination, how could two people possibly have been killed by a .32 automatic? Surely everyone here knows nothing less than a .45 is adequate for that purpose! Oh, what's that? You say Ghandi was killed with one? And the pope? Yeah, but it didn't kill him. See?

Glenn E. Meyer
January 30, 2009, 11:19 AM
For me it would have to be a national ban on firearms. Likely handguns or rifles as I know the importance of both in Revolution.

I'll play - one problem I have with gun list revolution threads is that they typically focus on revolution only based on gun confiscation schemes. I don't remember other violations of liberty that would raise the flag.

I think that violations of the other items of the BOR are equally important. Closing down a free press or instituting a state religion or other scenarios are equally important. In fact, I sometimes see gun lists (not here typically)proposing horrendous rights violations but folks are OK with that if they could keep their guns and the groups getting screwed don't fit their social views.

When I see folks actually arguing for general liberty protection outside of just opposing gun confiscation, do I take the topic seriously.

The argument is that the 2nd protects all the others but then you don't ever see anyone talking about the 'others' - in fact, some folks are happy with those violations.

RevNate
January 30, 2009, 11:50 AM
If the day comes, it will be more evident to us in hidsight than in foresight. That is the sad reality of the populus. Awareness of the trends is crucial, but we will likely not recognize the day when we should until it has become the day when we should have.

teeroux
January 30, 2009, 11:54 AM
I think its time already there are too many violations of the others and violations in the way government policies and laws are passed/enforced. IMO the second is one of the less restricted of our rights and if everyone stays focused on this one right you will give them all the more power to take the rest of your rights.

johnwilliamson062
January 30, 2009, 11:59 AM
Closing down a free press or instituting a state religion or other scenarios are equally important.
I generally assume that if we have guns we will have freedom of the press. It is hard to stop an armed person from speaking. I think it is inherent that the second amendment has to be weakened before the first can be weakened, and the second destroyed before the first can be destroyed.

What I was more thinking was:
Is there an amount of tax you would go to war rather than pay?
What if emigration is limited?
What if there are curfews?
Roadblocks where they check papers?
National fingerprint/DNA database?
We invade Iran?
Unemployment reaches 40%?
Voting is limited to tax payers?

Bartholomew Roberts
January 30, 2009, 12:11 PM
To me the key is representation - as long as that representation accurately reflects the wishes of it's constituents there is no practical basis in revolution. Why have a war that will destroy lives, material and wealth if you will ultimately lose on your issue anyway?

As broken as our current system may be, it does mostly reflect the wishes (or rather the apathy) of its constituents. One problem I see developing though is the immense amount of specialized knowledge necessary to run a country. How do you stay educated on that so you can be informed in your voting? Obviously you have to trust someone to analyze and summarize many issues for you. Who do you rely on to do this?

Vanya
January 30, 2009, 12:20 PM
johnwilliamson062 wrote:
I generally assume that if we have guns we will have freedom of the press.

Umm... Just how free the press is in this country, at the moment, is sort of debatable. The mainstream media, television, radio, and newspapers, are mostly controlled by a very small number of large corporations, at least some of which have obvious vested interests in determining how the news, and what news, is reported. NBC, for example, is owned by General Electric, which is also a huge defense contractor. Funnily enough, their coverage of the Iraq war over the past several years has amounted to Pentagon propaganda: consider, for example, the number of NBC's "commentators" and "news analysts" who are retired generals with ties to the defense industry. (This is true of other news outlets as well, but NBC is sort of a standout in this regard. For specifics on the "big three," look here: http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2004/narrative_networktv_ownership.asp?cat=5&media=4)

It may be hard to stop an armed person from speaking, but money and power speak a lot louder.

johnwilliamson062
January 30, 2009, 12:41 PM
as long as that representation accurately reflects the wishes of it's constituents
The big problem I see in our current system is that Citizens are represented fairly, but the select group of taxpayers is not represented. If you limited the vote to taxpayers our country would be run much differently than it currently is.
If I am footing the bill for something I want my control in the thing to reflect that.

Umm... Just how free the press is in this country, at the moment, is sort of debatable.
I could agree, just as I could agree the 2nd amendment is not all it was meant to be at current. Papers still print stories about corrupt governors in Illinois, I can still get on an internet forum and talk about what it would take for me to rebel and ask others how close they are. To really put an end to freedom of speech the gov't has to systematically cut out the tongues of those who spoke against it. Saddam did it. I don't see anything like that happening until after firearms are banned or limited to only certain people. I am offended by the patriot act more so than the Brady bill, but there are enough first amendment advocates I don't believe I am as desperately needed on that section of the line.

BlueTrain
January 30, 2009, 12:49 PM
The thing about the limitations of the media have more to do with cost cutting than anything else.

It should be noted that the causes of a war or a revolution are not the same as what caused the war to actually start. In other words, there has to be a trigger event, you might say. In the case of the American Civil War, it was Ft. Sumter being fired upon. That was how the war started.

There were several causes of the American War of Independence, most of which are covered in the Declaration of Independence, like taxation and the lack of representation but generally, British arrogance and stupidity, something that has not gone away (not referring to only the British here). However, the war really started when attempts were made to confiscate arms held by the colonists, or more correctly, by the colonial governments. In Virginia, they were held in the magazine right in the middle of town across the street from the courthouse. That's right, the militia's arms were kept in the magazine under lock and key. The militia mustered out front. In Massachusetts the troops met by the minutemen in Concord were on their way to do the same thing.

The rest is history.

Al Norris
January 30, 2009, 12:58 PM
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once. "*

What Kozinski is saying, is that while guns play a part, they are not the first nor foremost offense. Yes, he's saying that we must keep our arms, but that is only to respond to the other abuses.

Remembering that this forum is about not just law, but equally our civil rights, this thread was started very close to a TEOTEAWKI scenario.

Can we keep it away from such?

Hard to say. I rather doubt it, but I'm willing to keep it open as long as everyone keeps to the forums main thesis.










* Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 570 (Kozinski, J., dissenting)

Tom Servo
January 30, 2009, 01:02 PM
I hate to say it, but I don't think the American people have it in us anymore.

There was an essay published a few weeks back which showed that less than 5% of gun owners were politically active (I can't remember where it was; if somebody remembers, I'd be grateful). Most of the people I see grumbling about the election can't even name their own senator.

Right now, it seems every third person I talk to has some sort of Guy Fawkes fantasy going, but ask them if they've ever so much as spoken to their representative, and the answer is no. Ask them if they vote locally, and the answer is no. They'd love to do something, but Tuesday's not good because Taylor has soccer practice, and Sunday's definitely out of the question because the Steelers are playing.

Yet these are the people who claim that they value their rights, and that they'll fight for them. These aren't average Joes on the street; they're folks who identify themselves as "gun people."

You'd be amazed how many gun people voted for Obama, despite his record. We can't even agree on political candidates; how could we agree on a course of action that will lead to the sorts of hardships rebellion would incur?

Those who might have the inclination, motivation and means to rebel will likely look around and realize that they will have no meaningful support they can count on.

I'd like to think that gun people are as politically aware and active as the archetype suggests, but I've seen too much evidence to the contrary. Sure, there is a subset of us who pull the weight, but for the most part, the gun culture is no more attuned to this than any other segment of American culture.

Yeah, I'm a real ray of sunshine today, I know. But this is what I've been seeing and hearing the last few years, and the conclusion is inescapable. It's not just about the 2nd Amendment, it's about all of our rights. We've been gladly accepting incremental infringements since Reconstruction. See this week's Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. Johnson.

I get the feeling a revolution would be short-lived, and that the end result would be an even more oppressive situation.

zukiphile
January 30, 2009, 01:23 PM
I hate to say it, but I don't think the American people have it in us anymore.


I agree, but am not confident this is all bad.

Some parts of my family have been here since before the revolution, and I write none of this with hostility to early americans.

This was an insurrection that had as much to do with americans being upset about very modest taxation to help offset the considerable cost of defense against the abos and french as it did with issues of representation.

Only a couple of decade after we had the disorderly genie of revolution put back in the bottle, we invaded Canada. We were a country with so much land, we were giving it to people to get them to settle it, but we invaded Canada! My great, great, great uncle resigned his federal commission because it interfered with his role in his state's organised militia, then declared war on Michigan. A few decades later we slaughtered each other over the issue of whether states that had joined the union voluntarily were free to leave it.


Today's population does differ greatly, and I regret passive dependence of nearly the entire population on a heavy handed state. But I can't shake the sense that a couple of centuries ago we had ample vices to accompany our virtues.

zxcvbob
January 30, 2009, 01:39 PM
I like to read about the Battle of Athens (1946) every once in a while to help keep my perspective. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1985/2/1985_2_72.shtml

ThorntonMelon
January 30, 2009, 01:59 PM
I hate to say it, but I don't think the American people have it in us anymore.

There was an essay published a few weeks back which showed that less than 5% of gun owners were politically active (I can't remember where it was; if somebody remembers, I'd be grateful). Most of the people I see grumbling about the election can't even name their own senator.

Right now, it seems every third person I talk to has some sort of Guy Fawkes fantasy going, but ask them if they've ever so much as spoken to their representative, and the answer is no. Ask them if they vote locally, and the answer is no. They'd love to do something, but Tuesday's not good because Taylor has soccer practice, and Sunday's definitely out of the question because the Steelers are playing.

Yet these are the people who claim that they value their rights, and that they'll fight for them. These aren't average Joes on the street; they're folks who identify themselves as "gun people."

You'd be amazed how many gun people voted for Obama, despite his record. We can't even agree on political candidates; how could we agree on a course of action that will lead to the sorts of hardships rebellion would incur?

Those who might have the inclination, motivation and means to rebel will likely look around and realize that they will have no meaningful support they can count on.

I'd like to think that gun people are as politically aware and active as the archetype suggests, but I've seen too much evidence to the contrary. Sure, there is a subset of us who pull the weight, but for the most part, the gun culture is no more attuned to this than any other segment of American culture.

Yeah, I'm a real ray of sunshine today, I know. But this is what I've been seeing and hearing the last few years, and the conclusion is inescapable. It's not just about the 2nd Amendment, it's about all of our rights. We've been gladly accepting incremental infringements since Reconstruction. See this week's Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. Johnson.

I get the feeling a revolution would be short-lived, and that the end result would be an even more oppressive situation.

Sadly, I think you're correct. The only ones who would really be likely to take up arms against the gov't are the Michigan Militia types, who are generally regarded as kooks anyway...most people won't take them seriously. The media would label them as backwoods six-toothers, there'd be a standoff for a few days like Waco or Ruby Ridge, and ultimately they'd lose. That's about as far as it would go. There won't be any more Revolutions in this country.
__________________

vranasaurus
January 30, 2009, 02:09 PM
To me the key is representation - as long as that representation accurately reflects the wishes of it's constituents there is no practical basis in revolution.

The problem with this is if a majority of the population wishes to curtail your rights are you ok with that.

The problem with your proposition is that tyranny can very well come from a majority view point. The founding fathers were well aware of the tyranny of the majority and parts of the constitution reflect it.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 30, 2009, 02:13 PM
To return to my basic thesis and spur conversation - I would remind folks that the country had until recently periods when the basic rights of significant groups were tremendously impeded. There was little push from what would be seen as gun rights favorable populations to remove those restrictions, for the most part. The NRA did aid in arming Blacks. But gun laws aimed at African Americans were promoted to specially restricted their rights and protect the control of their rights. The gun bearing populations of those areas (being Caucasian) were ok with that. They had their guns.

To assume that the gun owning populations will necessarily support other civil liberties is not always true. That seems to be a major point of the thesis. Banning flag burning, mandated religious observance in schools, media control, illegal searches, past bans on contraception or sexual activity between consenting adults, what recreational substances can be used, interrment in camps - all kinds of violations of personal liberty and action are or were OK with a significant part of the gun owning populace.

So I'm doubtful of the general thesis of the 2nd protecting all others. Gun owners did not rise in rebellion for equal voting rights or to end segregation.

Also, rebellion to resist a war you disagree with? Isn't that what Bill Ayers became a poster boy of Fox News for doing? Do you think his actions were legit in opposition to the Viet Nam war or was he really a GOP described domestic terrorists or a patriot? The war was ended by the right of assembly and the electoral process, IIRC.

We are nowhere near the extremes needed for rebellion. The discussion that a new gun law is the trigger is standard fare for gun lists but IMHO very simplistic - no offense.

maestro pistolero
January 30, 2009, 02:16 PM
I like to read about the Battle of Athens (1946) every once in a while to help keep my perspective. http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...985_2_72.shtml

God, that would make a great movie!

johnwilliamson062
January 30, 2009, 03:05 PM
Remembering that this forum is about not just law, but equally our civil rights, this thread was started very close to a TEOTEAWKI scenario.
I really don't think even a full blown revolution would qualify as TEOTWAWKI, at least not in my mind.

the Battle of Athens (1946)
I also like to read about it to remind myself.
I also think it would make a good movie. I a not sure if it would be commercially viable, but it would help with the message.

I hate to say it, but I don't think the American people have it in us anymore.
I can't disagree. But the American Revolution started with something like 5% of colonists actively supporting it. I haven't studied up on the details for sometime but I remember it being somewhere around there. Fidel Castro landed in Cuba with 100 men, more than 80 of which died in the first few days. Rebellions are rarely as universal as the French Revolution.

We are nowhere near the extremes needed for rebellion. The discussion that a new gun law is the trigger is standard fare for gun lists but IMHO very simplistic - no offense.
I agree that we are nowhere close. Gun laws in Ohio are reasonably tolerable, as in it is reasonable for me to tolerate them, not necessarily reasonable for them to be there. I personally am willing to stick with the system as long as I have the option of not doing so. Hence my trigger.

I really just wanted to know what the trigger was for other people. I was not saying everyone should rebel at a national firearms ban, just that everyone should think about what the trigger is and have it set in their mind.

sholling
January 30, 2009, 04:24 PM
First of all I doubt that a revolution could ever happen short of the federal government declaring that future elections are unnecessary and will no longer be held. Even the inevitable national declaration of bankruptcy will not be enough to trigger revolution, only the election of a national strongman.

A far more likely possibility (probability?) is the secession of several states, perhaps even the majority of states. There is already (as reported by Glen Beck) an active, if small, secessionist movement operating in all 50 states. This is a possibility because the vast majority of federal troops could no longer be persuaded to open fire on Americans. Federal law enforcement absolutely, the vast majority of the army and marine corps no way. And if pressed to do so there is a good chance that many would simply change sides bringing their arms and equipment with them. Many things could trigger such a movement including gun bans, a defacto ban on opposition media, the growing domination of all 50 states by a handful of states, and/or a national economic collapse.

zxcvbob
January 30, 2009, 04:41 PM
This is a possibility because the vast majority of federal troops could no longer be persuaded to open fire on Americans. Federal law enforcement absolutely, the vast majority of the army and marine corps no way. And if pressed to do so there is a good chance that many would simply change sides bringing their arms and equipment with them. Many things could trigger such a movement including gun bans, a defacto ban on opposition media, the growing domination of all 50 states by a handful of states, and/or a national economic collapse.

The political collapse will happen when the military is sent to bring arms agains US citizens to impose some unconstitutional law on a large scale. A large (heavily armed) part will refuse, setting up a battle (figuratively if not literally) between federal law enforcement and their loyalists vs. the rest of the military and irregulars.

obxned
January 30, 2009, 05:46 PM
A tyrannical government constantly meddling in my private life, interfering with my business, and taxing me into poverty.

vranasaurus
January 30, 2009, 06:08 PM
The only way a revolution would succeed would be if a fairly good sized prortion of the military sided with the revolutionaries. I could only see that happening if what the military was ordered to do violated the constitution in an egregious manner. It would probably require a bunch of general or flag officers in order to make that happen.

The military oath requires two things:

1. support and defend the constituion

2. obey the orders of the president and the officers appointed over you

I don't think the order of those two things in the oath is insignificant.

Hkmp5sd
January 30, 2009, 06:11 PM
A revolt will never happen. The people will follow like sheep.

In another twenty years of public education and liberal mass media, the people will willingly repeal the 2nd Amendment as outdated and a danger to the public.

They are already watching the 1st Amendment fade away. The news media is in a love affair with the current administration and reports only what they want. Once the democrats bring back the "Fairness Doctrine", any dissent in the media will be silenced.

If the news media can convince the population that it is their "patriotic duty" to pay taxes, they can convince them of anything.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 30, 2009, 06:16 PM
I for one cannot see that happening in any way in the near of foreseeable future. I think the system of government we were given and the maturity of our democratic institutions would prevent such a thing. I often do not agree with the government but I feel that my vote and the votes of other count and time and time again (like the recent Illinois Governor impreachment) the system works. Not perfect and mistakes are made but in the end there is no better system in the world. I don't think a revolution would produce a better system.

Another view of the "Battle of Athens" may be found here: http://tennesseeencyclopedia.net/imagegallery.php?EntryID=A043

I quote a pertinent part:Although recalled fifty years later with a certain amount of local pride, the battle of Athens initially proved a source of embarrassment, and many residents abhorred the violent, extralegal actions of the veterans. The image of gun-wielding hillbilly ex-soldiers shooting it out with the Cantrell-Mansfield "thugs" that blazed across national and regional newspaper headlines enhanced East Tennessee's reputation for violence and lawlessness. The Good Government League, empowered by the veterans' victory, scored few successes in its efforts to eradicate the vice, corruption, and arbitrary rule of machine government.

zxcvbob
January 30, 2009, 06:19 PM
The only way a revolution would succeed would be if a fairly good sized prortion of the military sided with the revolutionaries. I could only see that happening if what the military was ordered to do violated the constitution in an egregious manner. It would probably require a bunch of general or flag officers in order to make that happen.

It will *start* in the military, as the reaction to an egregiously unlawful order. And it won't be a revolution, it will be an implosion. Perhaps a revolution will rise out of the ashes, or perhaps not.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 30, 2009, 06:40 PM
The problem with this is if a majority of the population wishes to curtail your rights are you ok with that.

I don't believe I ever said anything like that. My point was that as long as representation accurately reflected the wishes of its constituents you were better off using the political system to fight your battles as a practical matter. You may very well be unjustly oppressed, as happened repeatedly during the Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s; but picking up arms and revolting in that environment will mean you lose; because if you lack the support to win politically, you almost certainly lack the support to win by force of arms.

As long as representation accurately mirrors public sentiment, use of force is not a winning strategy (whether that public sentiment is fair or not). If use of force IS a winning strategy, then you don't need to resort to it because you already have the numbers you need and a way to win without destruction of infrastructure or lives.

B. Lahey
January 30, 2009, 06:54 PM
Bacon Prohibition.

rgoers
January 30, 2009, 08:00 PM
All it would take (for me) is a good leader. The time is already here...

berettaprofessor
January 30, 2009, 09:04 PM
Yep, Bacon Prohibition would do it, but a Butter Confiscation would suffice as well.

johnwilliamson062
January 30, 2009, 09:04 PM
A tyrannical government constantly meddling in my private life, interfering with my business, and taxing me into poverty.
I am talking concrete things. Not flimsy crap you might read in a communist pamphlet. I said in a previous thread here that if the economy was so bad I could not go to the store, buy a can of compressed whipped cream tilt my head back and take a shot the gov't would feel my wraith. Now that was obviously a comical post, but if the economy got so bad I couldn't do that enough others things would be wrong it might be true.

Lets have it, what are some concrete things you would not put up with? Whether they have already happened or not.

In response to others off topic posts:
The only way I can possibly see the United states getting back on track without some sort of violent conflict is to limit the vote to those who foot the bill. As long as people living off of tax revenue control as much of the vote as they do, we will not see change.

The revolution would succeed if Rifleman, like the people on this board, get behind it. The US has an extremely poorly guarded infrastructure. Imagine the effect of chaining 3-4 cars on certain exit ramps in large cities. If you blocked traffic in two or three places strategically during rush hour you could gridlock whole metropolises for hours at almost no cost. The economic damage would be immense if done in the morning. Very little loss of life very little cost to the perpetrators. Our military is extremely dependent on having secure rear operating positions to stage from. This luxury would vanish. Put a 50 cal round through the right places on a jet and you are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. Coordinate it so that you target a low wear part that is not all that available and one sniper can ground a squadron for weeks. The luxuries the US military has had for the last 50 years has left it with a huge blindside.

Tom Servo
January 30, 2009, 09:58 PM
A tyrannical government constantly meddling in my private life, interfering with my business, and taxing me into poverty.
Sounds like Scandinavia. Except there, it's a friendly government meddling, interfering and taxing. They're doing it for your own good.

Get used to hearing that phrase. I've seen some real parallels between the semi-socialist welfare-state system in Denmark and the stuff folks would like to see done here.

I don't think we're past the tipping point yet. The question remains, "what IS the tipping point?" Will we see it coming in time?

I won't discuss means or plans. Yes, it's easy to disrupt infrastructure, and yes, I've read Unintended Consequences. Thing is, if I were inclined do any of those things, there would be no turning back. I would be remembered not as a Patrick Henry, but as a Timothy McVeigh.

Remember how deftly the Clinton administration turned "militia" into an insult. The general public still thinks Ruby Ridge was about white supremacist nutcases, and that Waco was about religious weirdos.

Still want a revolution? :o

So, back to the OP. The only answer is, I just don't know. I hope I see it coming in time.

Tennessee Gentleman
January 30, 2009, 10:45 PM
As long as representation accurately mirrors public sentiment, use of force is not a winning strategy (whether that public sentiment is fair or not). If use of force IS a winning strategy, then you don't need to resort to it because you already have the numbers you need and a way to win without destruction of infrastructure or lives.

This is a well reasoned post. Thanks Bart.

As to some of this other stuff, I know we want to share ideas and I like that but keep in mind that some of this rhetoric about shooting up airliners and Unintended Consequences, Waco and Ruby Ridge being government plots to squelch our freedoms is the stuff that makes gun owners look dangerous to the non-gun owners who vote and affect the laws we get stuck with. Want to help pass the AWB? Then haul out and start quoting Unintended Consequences and it will pass for sure. The government and the USA is not our enemy. We own it if we stay involved.

Scattergun Bob
January 30, 2009, 11:50 PM
I never thought I would read such a thread in this forum!! The thought of rebellion against the Stars and Bars is so foreign to me that I was overwhelmed by those whom proposed it.
To me rebellion = Chaos, and Chaos = the stopping of the wheels that move our nation, a thought that chills me to the core.

Hopefully, those of you who advocate such a course of action, have not experienced Chaos and are simply unaware of the conquests. I have viewed the Chaos first hand and in my mind it would mean an end to America. To you I wish you would hold off until I have passed on, I am not ready for a second viewing of a world on fire.
Good Luck & Be Safe

Al Norris
January 31, 2009, 12:29 AM
The revolution would succeed if Rifleman, like the people on this board, get behind it. The US has an extremely poorly guarded infrastructure. Imagine the effect of chaining 3-4 cars on certain exit ramps in large cities. If you blocked traffic in two or three places strategically during rush hour you could gridlock whole metropolises for hours at almost no cost. The economic damage would be immense if done in the morning. Very little loss of life very little cost to the perpetrators. Our military is extremely dependent on having secure rear operating positions to stage from. This luxury would vanish. Put a 50 cal round through the right places on a jet and you are looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. Coordinate it so that you target a low wear part that is not all that available and one sniper can ground a squadron for weeks. The luxuries the US military has had for the last 50 years has left it with a huge blindside.
When the OP and thread starter goes from, "Where is the Line?" to point out ways to make it happen... You just know the thread has ended.