PDA

View Full Version : Revolution Timing?


Drewman
April 6, 2009, 10:50 AM
Hi, Guys-

As a new member I hate to "start out" by asking such a 'radical' question, but I am not new to the world of firearms or 2nd Amendment issues. I was reading some of the posts about our rights as free Americans, so this got my mind on this subject:


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Thomas Jefferson

When does time to time (as stated by our esteemed forefather) arrive?

I saw in an article recently where National Guard troops were going to be trained in some "urban warfare" exercises which was to include going house-to-house and inquire which houses had firearms in them, and practice "liberating" (confiscating) those found. This was in the States (Iowa, I think-don't remember, for sure) and the pre-exercise news release raised such a ruckus that they cancelled it. So-do we wait until these sorts of exercises become reality, or do we exercise our rights and stop the politicians before they "stop" us from being gun owners?

I would like to hear the opinions of my fellow TFL members, and would also be more than willing to discuss this (or any other related topic) one-on-one in email via IM, or on Skype.

Thanks for reading, and giving your input-

Mike Irwin
April 6, 2009, 11:30 AM
Generally this type of post is frowned up on here at TFL as, at its very core, expresses black letter illegal activities, i.e., the overthrow of the US government.

However, this one is worded a bit differently, more hypothetically, and has a poll, as opposed to some of the ones I've seen in the past that are essentially calls to revolution.

Anyone who chooses to respond had better keep in mind that the second any individual starts advocating FOR a commencement of revolution:

1. The thread will be closed.

2. The poster advocating armed insurrection will most likely be banned both to protect the good name and reputation of The Firing Line and to helpe protect the offending poster from himself.

hogdogs
April 6, 2009, 11:35 AM
I would, under no circumstance, join in an organized revolt. Beyond that, I ain't sayin' nuttin'...
Brent

grymster2007
April 6, 2009, 11:42 AM
I'm too fat, lazy and stupid to resist and it wouldn't take much to disarm me. The promise of a hamburger would see me willingly led off to the concentration camp. :confused:

What do you expect people to say here? And regardless what someone posts, more or less anonymously on the web, I would guess a whole bunch of the chest-thumping, "from my cold, dead hands", tough-guy crap would morph into mealy-mouthed compliance when the state security forces do show up.

KLRANGL
April 6, 2009, 12:15 PM
I'll stick with writing my legislators letters about how upset or happy I am with them for not support or supporting things I beleive in.
An organized revolt in and of itself is just a bad idea, but I would fight to protect my state from its enemies foreign or domestic. But we all know how well that turned out last time :(

chris in va
April 6, 2009, 12:25 PM
No way of knowing until something happens. Same for a SD situation.

alloy
April 6, 2009, 12:35 PM
Let's go three or four more election cycles first ok?:) Things have a way of going back and forth in our system to our benefit and everybody gets to try to run the country the way they want.

But hypothetically....if a zombie maniac ever got elected and started rounding up left handed people to make soylent green, i would hope that our official military still reads the Constitution.

kestak
April 6, 2009, 12:38 PM
Greetings,

I do not think an organized revolt will raise. Too many people are too complacent. I think it will be more small groups of anarchists targeting the wrong target (like McVee in the 90s). And I won't be part of that. NEVER.

Do you know how to boil a frog alive?
1 - Put the frog in cold water
2 - Raise the water temperature slowly up to the boiling point. The frog won't get out.

Bottom line, I think this country father thought about what is occuring right now and they built a safety in the Constitution. We should vote them all out...if we can do it before they legalize 25 mils illegals that would settle the Dem vote for a long time.

Thank you

miroslav
April 6, 2009, 12:41 PM
An armed uprising against the government by a small group of individuals would be pointless. No group of private citizens has the resources necessary to take on the government and overthrow it. And I highly doubt that there are any States thinking of seceding from the Union right now.

Any revolution today needs to happen through our political process, not against it. A revolution at the polls, if you will. If you're not happy with what your government is doing, then get involved. Vote out of office the people you don't like, keep track of how your representatives are voting, and write them to tell them what you think about the bills they are going to be voting on. Talk to your friends and relatives and get them involved too.

They say you shouldn't talk about politics in a polite conversation, I say bull$hit to that. If we don't start talking with each other and with our elected reps about how we feel, then those reps will just continue to do what they want, instead of what we (the people they are supposed to represent) want. Democracy only works for the people if they participate in it! How many people in our country today just don't care anymore, or think their one voice can't make any difference anyway so why try. The so called 'silent majority' has no power if it always remains silent.

vranasaurus
April 6, 2009, 12:47 PM
Let's remember prior to the American revolution a great deal of time was spent trying to get the king to cede to the demands of the colonists. The efforts at avoiding the revolution were quite substantial.

I think substantial effort must be expended to avoid any revolution. These activities include writing our elected officials, peaceful protests, acts of civil disobedience, etc. Only when all of that failed after being given a substantial opportunity would anyone even be justified in thinking about a revolt.

Revolution is not a good thing. They often destroy the very insitutions necessary to get back to a peaceful civil government. And very often people with repressive and undesireable beliefs end up leading the rebels and should they win it can be very bad for those not siding with the rebels.

The American Revolution is rare in history in that the results did lead to more freedom. Now you can argue that many did not acheive more freedom as a result and you would be correct but that was due to the cultural values and norms of the time and not the result of the revolution.

The ultimate result of the American Revolution was the US Constitution and that started us on the path to a great deal of freedom for all Americans. It contains a process to amend itself so that when we think it needs changing it can be done but it is purposely difficult. The process was used to end slavery, protect and expand voting rights, allow 18 y/o's to vote, allow for direct electin of Senators, and even codify many of our god given rights in the Bill of Rights.


Very often revolution results in less freedom and not more. Think Taliban, French Revolution, or Russian Revolution.


When you think of armed insurrection and the chaos that would follow think about a Mad Max type world and you would get very close to what the world might be like.

I swore an oath to support and defend the constitution and to obey the orders I am given. As long as the consitution is still the law of the land and it is being followed, and I don't mean my(or your) interpretation. As long as the people vote to elect the president and congress and the supreme court is interpreting the law, which is the interpretation that counts, I can't see any reason not to honor my oath.

kestak
April 6, 2009, 12:47 PM
Greetings,

Just a clarifier: Democracy does not work. The Fathers knew it. USA is not a democracy, but a Republic.

Initially, the Senators were not elected by the People. Having them elected by the People unbalanced the government.

Thank you

Scorch
April 6, 2009, 12:50 PM
http://www.aesopfables.com/cgi/aesop1.cgi?2&TheFrogsAskingforKing
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html
Before you start asking for something, make sure you are really ready.

Brian Pfleuger
April 6, 2009, 12:51 PM
The United States is a Constitutional Federal Republic, for the record.


Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions, and limits of that government.

Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.


We have a chance for revolution every few years. We just choose to waste that chance on the same fleabags every time.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 6, 2009, 01:12 PM
Great social changes have been instituted in the USA by convincing the public of the correctness of your cause and wielding power via the ballot box.

African-americans were slaves and couldn't vote. Women couldn't vote. Now we have an African-american president and several viable female contenders for the presidency.

Wars that were not supported were ended by the ballot box and not by revolution.

Only some in the gun world are so fearful that they cannot convice others of the righteous nature of the RKBA and the use of the ballot box that they have to propose revolution and put on the tin foil combat beanie.

grymster2007
April 6, 2009, 02:20 PM
When does time to time (as stated by our esteemed forefather) arrive? Maybe someday, but not today, tomorrow or any time in the foreseeable future. Like others have stated, I think revolution in this country can only take place at the ballot box. Even if a large number of the people rose in armed revolt, they would not have the resources and wherewithal to prevail against the government. And remember, the government would have a lot of support from the same people they've already bought and paid for with our tax dollars.


put on the tin foil combat beanie. Do they have those with an integrated, flip-down, tactical colander?

Bartholomew Roberts
April 6, 2009, 06:55 PM
In looking to our forefathers for guidance, I think it is important to remember that one of their major complaints was that they had no representation. Our forefathers had actually organized politically long before the revolution and controlled many of the colonial legislatures. They owned newspapers. They were important leaders in their communities.

They weren't guys who were solely organized around the idea of an armed confrontation. They were masters of all the tools of modern warfare - communications, PR, information, logistics.

The great thing about the system they set up is it serves as a pretty reliable proxy for warfare without the destruction of infrastructure. If you can't win a political campaign, you probably aren't going to win an armed conflict either.

44 AMP
April 6, 2009, 08:36 PM
"Unintended Consequences" by John Ross.

While fiction, it does contain some very interesting viewpoints. In it, one of the characters is asked aquestion very similar to the one you are asking. "How do you know when it is time....?"

The answer given likens the situation to one where you meet a nice man, and get in the van with him. Things seem to be going well enough, until he gets out a set of handcuff, and asks you to wear them, for your "safety".

That is the time to resist. When the handcuffs come out. NOT after you put them on.

The trick, of course, is to recognise the handcuffs for what they are. Even if they have a cute fur cover on them.

I can't give you a definate answer of when that time is, only that it is not today. Tomorrow things may be different. I don't see any handcuffs yet. But there is something glinting in the distant light.

Welcome to the board, and enjoy!

bojack2575
April 6, 2009, 09:44 PM
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Oath of Office (for officers):

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance tot he same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Now if we just had a president that beleived in the Constitution of the United States we shouldn't have anything to worry about...........right:rolleyes:

jeepstrapped
April 6, 2009, 10:51 PM
I spend a modicum of time becoming aware of issues and practicing the power of the vote on a regular basis.

I think that if there are enough people worried about the direction of the USA, they should run for political office and make a change. Grassroots efforts have a way of fostering change.

According to nra.org, http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Faq/?s=1

While no absolute count is available, it is closely estimated that there are 60-65 million gun owners, 30-35 million of whom own handguns. According to survey research, at least 45% of American households own firearms.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Faq/?s=70

At the present time, NRA has approximately 4.3 million members. NRA does not compile demographic information on members.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Faq/?s=27

And according to http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html there are 306,164,648 people in the US.

Imagine of 1% of gun owners would run for political office, this would be 600,000 to 650,000 people who support gun rights running for political office. Heck, even if 1% of NRA members would run for office that would be 43,000 people who support gun rights running for political office.

If you want to affect change, put yourself in a position to affect the law.

So, my advice Drewman, is that if you are that passionate about gun rights, run for office on a platform supporting gun rights. With almost half of all households owning firearms there is support for the cause.
And if the posts on here recently bear true, there are even more gun owners out there now.
"edit" Be your own revolution and change the system from within. ;-)

Just my $.005

bob.a
April 6, 2009, 11:17 PM
Our Founders were coming off very heady times, having successfully separated themselves from the British through force of arms. Their statements praising revolution and watering the tree of Liberty should be viewed in light of their successful struggle; and by no means do I denigrate their achievements.

Still, they were fighting an outside oppressor based across a few thousand miles of ocean, which took weeks to traverse. Nowadays we elect our oppressors right here at home, and military force beyond the wildest nightmares of the Founding Fathers is available to them in hours, if not minutes.

Those who advocate getting involved in the political process have the key; however, it takes lots of treasure and time to mount a campaign, both of which require a broad base of support. Fortunately the federalist nature of our govt will prevent total oppression, but it might be necessary to live in, or move to, a state with a population that supports your beliefs.

Living in Maryland as I do, I'll probably have to move to be able to exercise the full rights of citizenship. It will probably come to that in a few years.

vranasaurus
April 7, 2009, 09:05 AM
In looking to our forefathers for guidance, I think it is important to remember that one of their major complaints was that they had no representation. Our forefathers had actually organized politically long before the revolution and controlled many of the colonial legislatures. They owned newspapers. They were important leaders in their communities.

They weren't guys who were solely organized around the idea of an armed confrontation. They were masters of all the tools of modern warfare - communications, PR, information, logistics.

The great thing about the system they set up is it serves as a pretty reliable proxy for warfare without the destruction of infrastructure. If you can't win a political campaign, you probably aren't going to win an armed conflict either.

You are correct. Convincing someone to vote for you is a hell of a lot easier than convincing them to pick up their gun a follow you to war.

If you have the ability to convince the requisite number of people to follow you to revolution through arms you certainly have he ability to recruit enough to win at the ballot box.

gb_in_ga
April 7, 2009, 11:17 AM
Personally, I can't go so far as to say that there is no way that I'd ever participate in a revolt against the powers that be. I recognize that a very significant reason the 2nd Amendment is there is to allow for revolution. The implied threat of revolution is part of the checks and balances of our political system. Disgusted as I am with the current powers that be in our Federal Government, I don't feel that now is the time to play the revolution card. It has to get even worse than it is (they have to actually carry out their intended plans), and we need to allow for a few election cycles to flush these miscreants out of the system before resorting to such. Now, if they were to just trash the system by suspending elections, declaring martial law, shooting or jailing the opposition, confiscating civilian weapons, or otherwise doing something like a rehash of the post-WWI Russia or the '30's Germany, then I'd change my mind in a hurry, as I suspect a whole lot of others would as well.

When the time for revolution comes, it'll be obvious to the reasonable patriotic person.

pendennis
April 7, 2009, 11:27 AM
One additional problem arises in the advent of a "revolution".

The Civil War was viewed as two different events. The South believed they were seceding from a voluntary entry into the United States. Abraham Lincoln believed, and proceeded with what he believed was an armed insurrection. This allowed him (again, in his belief), that habeas corpus could be suspended, and that he was allowed super-constitutional powers.

Lincoln was supported for the most part, by Northerners who believed in the preservation of the union.

This isn't to state that a successful secession couldn't succeed. It, however, seems unlikely.

JuanCarlos
April 7, 2009, 03:05 PM
Great social changes have been instituted in the USA by convincing the public of the correctness of your cause and wielding power via the ballot box.

African-americans were slaves and couldn't vote. Women couldn't vote. Now we have an African-american president and several viable female contenders for the presidency.

Wars that were not supported were ended by the ballot box and not by revolution.

Only some in the gun world are so fearful that they cannot convice others of the righteous nature of the RKBA and the use of the ballot box that they have to propose revolution and put on the tin foil combat beanie.


This.

That is the time to resist. When the handcuffs come out. NOT after you put them on.

The trick, of course, is to recognise the handcuffs for what they are. Even if they have a cute fur cover on them.

I can't give you a definate answer of when that time is, only that it is not today. Tomorrow things may be different. I don't see any handcuffs yet. But there is something glinting in the distant light.

Also, this. Revolution is always supposed to be a last resort, which is why many in polite society get a little uncomfortable when some folks like to talk just a little too much about it. It gives the impression that you're waiting for it. I hope any revolution doesn't come in my lifetime, or that of my children, or of their children.

As far as handcuffs go, there was an interesting post a while back in the old L&P forum basically explaining why second amendment rights are not the only concern to a free society, or even necessarily the greatest concern. As far as handcuffs go, I'd consider increasing restrictions on freedom of speech, press, and assembly to be much more worrying than some silly ban on semi-automatic rifles. The former are much more powerful tools to fight a tyrannical government, especially one as well-armed as ours, than an AR-15.

Not that the rifles won't help, of course. But one might argue that it's easier to get ahold of some rifles (there are plenty in the world, and somebody will always be willing to profit off a revolution) than to regain the ability to easily communicate, organize, and rally others to your cause.

levrluvr
April 7, 2009, 04:32 PM
Now, if they were to just trash the system by suspending elections, declaring martial law, shooting or jailing the opposition, confiscating civilian weapons, or otherwise doing something like a rehash of the post-WWI Russia or the '30's Germany, then I'd change my mind in a hurry, as I suspect a whole lot of others would as well.
When the time for revolution comes, it'll be obvious to the reasonable patriotic person.

This is pretty much how I feel on this topic. The Constitution is there to protect the people and limit the government. Those that have taken oaths to defend and protect it are likely to be prosecuted if they blatantly choose not to. The legal and election system are a far more preferable route to take to eject those that no longer think the Constitution is a viable document.

Chris_B
April 7, 2009, 04:44 PM
Timing can be tricky. What you want to do well before you pull the distributor is to mark the housing and the flange of the distributor so you index it's position.

If you fail this, get an old distributor cap. Remove your good one. Crash out the #1 post with a punch, and then drill out the hole so it is a BIG hole. Install it onto your distributor. Now you can make sure your rotor is pointing to the #1 post when you install it

Now, get in the car. The distributor's out so it won't start. While you 'bump' the starter (move it ever so slightly with the key) a friend has his finger in the #1 spark plug hole. No I'm not kidding. This will allow you to judge when the compression is 'lost'.

You'll either be timed or damn close to it, or 180* off. If that happens, bump her around the crank again and you've got it

Bear in mid that the cam gear is cut on an angle, and the rotor will rotate slightly as you install it. This is where a lot of mistakes happen- you line up your index marks, but the engine runs like crap...well, the rotor was off a little bit, and you can't advance or retard the spark enough by just turning the distributor to make up the difference. So timing can be tricky, and it's why I always recommend the old distributor cap trick

JuanCarlos
April 7, 2009, 05:16 PM
Man, I got 3/4 through that post before I realized what you were doing.

Then I chuckled heartily.

/tips hat

levrluvr
April 7, 2009, 09:03 PM
Chris- WELL DONE!!:) For those who have ever had to do this, he's got it just right.....;)

Mike Irwin
April 7, 2009, 09:12 PM
John's moustache is black.

John's moustache is black.

The priest has a white cat.

The priest has a white cat.

:rolleyes:

mikejonestkd
April 7, 2009, 09:17 PM
When I first saw the title I recall thinking " How could a SIG Revolution have a timing issue? Its not a revolver?!?!?"

Thanks Chris for the timing lesson...LOL

Chris_B
April 8, 2009, 04:57 PM
Sorry for the thread hijack but with all the super serious issues lately...I couldn't resist :D

gb_in_ga
April 8, 2009, 05:39 PM
John's moustache is black.

John's moustache is black.

The priest has a white cat.

The priest has a white cat.

Molasses tomorrow will bring forth cognac.

Molasses tomorrow will bring forth cognac.

John has a long moustache.

John has a long moustache.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePzwg0LyYL0

There is a fire at the insurance agency.

There is a fire at the insurance agency.

Wound my heart with a monotonous languor.

Wound my heart with a monotonous languor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanson_d%27automne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Londres

Mike Irwin
April 8, 2009, 06:09 PM
I'm familiar with the history. I wasn't being literal, I was being sarcastic.

jpoolsmyd2
April 8, 2009, 08:00 PM
Oh man, when I read this I was sure it was locked.

Nobody knows what they will do until confronted with the actual decision.

I'd like to think that I would always stand up for what I thought was right, but there are just too many variables that come into play.

gb_in_ga
April 8, 2009, 10:15 PM
I'm familiar with the history. I wasn't being literal, I was being sarcastic.
Yep, I figured that.

I was just being literal AND sarcastic -- simultaneously! After all, it is possible that there are people on this forum who aren't familiar with the history behind it...

Wildalaska
April 8, 2009, 11:14 PM
Interesting poll and good thread...but the true question is...

Are you willing to murder, or participate in acts that will lead to the murder of your fellow Americans over political issues?

See Il'yich's quote below and give ol Pete Townsend a glance

WildthatswhatarevolutionisallaboutAlaska TM

levrluvr
April 9, 2009, 12:58 AM
Are you willing to murder, or participate in acts that will lead to the murder of your fellow Americans over political issues?

Very valid question, but a two-way street.
Would military, NG, and LEO's be willing to do the same, if ordered to do so? I know history has shown there to be several instances of this (i.e. Kent State), but what if (purely hypothetically, of course) both sides main intent and common cause was to protect and defend the Consitution from an outside source wishing to destroy it?

Wildalaska
April 9, 2009, 01:16 AM
Would military, NG, and LEO's be willing to do the same, if ordered to do so?

But thats not the issue here is it. Thats an issue to be addressed to those folks.

Y'all can cloak the idea of revolution in any highfaltutin lingo you want, but the fact remains that historically, every true revolution (and the American "Revolution" wasnt one) leads to bodies in ditches.

WildupagainstthewallAlaska TM

model67a
April 9, 2009, 01:16 AM
We, the silent majority , have been silent too long. If our "unbiased" media is only going to print the anti's side of the issue the only alternative we have is make the most of the organizations we have that are printing the truth and be active in promoting firearm freedom in our daily life verbally to everyone we meet. If the American citizens, who have never been around guns or have no experience with guns, keep having the anti gun views hammered into their heads by the media and idiots like Feinstein, Pelosi, Clinton, Holder etc. we have to combat them with what we have. We are like a big old bear. We need to come out of hibernation and start living in the real world. Write your elected officials and remind them that we "hired" them and we can also "fire" them. I have noticed, as have most of you I'm sure, that when you start talking about votes, politicians have a way of hearing better. stay safe and be a walking advertisment for the 2A.

kestak
April 9, 2009, 05:43 AM
Greetings,

"Murder"...??

In my book, and it is mine, It is not a murder to kill the opressor like it is not a murder to execute a criminal who commited murder.

The cliche is that if you could have killed Hitler in 1918 it would have been murder because at that time he was innocent. But if you could have killed him after the long knife night, it would have been Justice...

I strongly believe we have elected and nominated individuals in the Government working against the good of the People for their own and their friends good. They know what they do will hurt (and currently hurts) millions of people but they do it again. What they do is legal, but they are morally criminals..and we are morally criminals to let them do it.

Thank you

Leif
April 9, 2009, 06:06 AM
I strongly believe we have elected and nominated individuals in the Government working against the good of the People for their own and their friends good. They know what they do will hurt (and currently hurts) millions of people but they do it again. What they do is legal, but they are morally criminals..and we are morally criminals to let them do it.

One could just as easily say the exact same thing about the previous administration. Yet, the only revolution necessary was the one at the ballot box, at least, the second time around.

hogdogs
April 9, 2009, 08:27 AM
Armed revolution is not legal or winnable any longer... Any one who contemplates this is unaware that the USofA is the most powerful military in the free world! Knowing this would negate the thought of a violent revolt!
Brent

johnwilliamson062
April 9, 2009, 09:23 AM
Things have a way of going back and forth in our system to our benefit and everybody gets to try to run the country the way they want.
It goes back and forth, but there is a general trend towards larger more controlling government.

Any revolution today needs to happen through our political process, not against it. A revolution at the polls, if you will. If you're not happy with what your government is doing, then get involved.
Agreed. Our country is nowhere near the place where a revolution is necessary. I would like to see more conservative middle class working age people get involved in protests though. The upcoming 4/15 Tea Party and 2A march planed for next Spring are good signs. Lets face it, no one cares what a bunch of non-voting hippies and college kids say.

I'd consider increasing restrictions on freedom of speech, press, and assembly to be much more worrying than some silly ban on semi-automatic rifles.
As long as I have the RKBA I have options. I am not cornered. When my RKBA is removed so are my options. THe others ARE more important, but it is very difficult to constrain them without first removing the RKBA. Of course I think it would be very hard to remove RKBA without first removing freedom of speech.

Convincing someone to vote for you is a hell of a lot easier than convincing them to pick up their gun a follow you to war.
Aparently you have not spent much time around 18 year old males...


And remember, the government would have a lot of support from the same people they've already bought and paid for with our tax dollars.
From what I have read and compiled, right now 55% of the US population relies on the US government for the majority of their income. When the US government owns 55% of the population, I am not so sure i am represented.


USA is not a democracy, but a Republic.
It was started as a Republic. It was meant to be a Republic. At this point it is much closer to a Democracy than the founders would have liked. If they had known people who did not pay taxes would end up voting I think they would have clarified that in the constitution.

An armed uprising against the government by a small group of individuals would be pointless. No group of private citizens has the resources necessary to take on the government and overthrow it. And I highly doubt that there are any States thinking of seceding from the Union right now.
One tenth of one percent of the United states is 300,000 people. THis is far far less than the number of active insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. I believe the segment of the US population represented in the 1/10th of one percent would also be much better armed, supplied, and trained than those insurgents. Dealing with 5-10 Ruby Ridge/Waco situations at once would put major strains on Federal law enforcement. Are you all that sure when put in that perspective?



Any one who contemplates this is unaware that the USofA is the most powerful military in the free world!
Who was the most powerful military power in 1776?

Our country is extremely soft. Both the attitudes of the people and our general structure. I am not saying the situation now calls for violent action, but anyone espousing the idea that it is impossible to succeed with this route b/c of new technologies needs to take another look.

Enough of this. It isn't time yet. Some people think it is and some people have already started to act, just read the news. John Brown was early too. THis might be a good time to skip a range trip and purchase a few books on small unit tactics, guerrilla tactics, and, most importantly, medical manuals. Che Guevarra was Castro's best resource b/c of his medical background. I don't think there was ever a time that wasn't good to read up on some of these things.

On the plus side I see a lot of people swinging away from the two party system and become more adamant supporters of reducing government size and expanding civil liberties. There just seems to be disagreement on which government programs and which civil liberties. Voinovich is not running in 2010 in part b/c many of his constituents are PO'd about how much wasteful pork he brought to the area. When people get PO'd about pork going to their own area things are looking up.

gb_in_ga
April 9, 2009, 09:24 AM
Interesting poll and good thread...but the true question is...

Are you willing to murder, or participate in acts that will lead to the murder of your fellow Americans over political issues?

A better question is whether or not it is murder at all. Are battlefield fatalities that occur in the course of a revolution murder? I say not. They are casualties of war. This is, of course, assuming that they are not the result of atrocities. Deliberate targeting of neutral non-combatants on either side IS murder.

So, do you consider the spilling of blood -- of tyrants and patriots -- during the course of justified revolution to be murder? You know, that blood that waters the tree of liberty that Thomas Jefferson spoke about? I, for one, do not. I consider it to be war and/or the carrying out of justice previously denied, which is something completely different than murder.

But thats not the issue here is it. Thats an issue to be addressed to those folks.

Y'all can cloak the idea of revolution in any highfaltutin lingo you want, but the fact remains that historically, every true revolution (and the American "Revolution" wasnt one) leads to bodies in ditches.
That people die in wars is a given. Combatants and noncombatants alike. It is part of the cost of war.

I ask you -- would you rather fight or be a slave? Would you resist or go to the gulag/death camps? Don't you realize that if/when the time for revolution/insurrection comes, the bodies will be in the ditches anyway? I, for one, will not go meekly to my death, nor will I meekly don the chains of slavery. There are worse things than war. Slavery and genocide, for instance. I'll fight, and I'll do so accepting the human cost because the cost of not fighting is so much worse. Your implication is that you feel that it is better to die quietly or live in chains than it is to resist tyranny as a free people.

Sam06
April 9, 2009, 10:01 AM
As a guy who spends about half my time in Africa(Kenya,Uganda, Liberia, DRC, CAR and Rawanda) I can tell you the last thing you want to see is a revolution. As WA said you will have to be prepared to commit murder and a lot of it. If there was an Armed revolution in the US it would be ugly and make the French revolution look like a Sunday school meeting.

Now as for a Voting revolution we better start one ASAP. The problem now is the Facebook/American Idol aspect of politics in this country and the Level of knowledge possessed by the majority of voters. I think there is going to be a lot of buyers remorse in the next few years and people are going to start wising up. If not this country is going to be like France with out a tower and an attitude. I was in Iraq when they had their 1st election in 04. They had to literally dodge bullets and bombs to vote. They could not even drive to town to vote(No cars allowed on the road). The voter turn out was 3 times higher than it is in America. That is sad and embarrassing. It just goes to show how complacent people have become.

For the guys that want an armed revolution here they need to get on a plane and do a nice little vacation to Liberia, Sierra Leon, Rawnda or maybe Cambodia. I think once you see what the after effects are you will cool down a little. Its not a pretty picture and it is not over in a few days or weeks. The after effects last for generations. I think it would be the Death Nell for this Republic as we know it and what would come after would be something none of us would want.

Chris B, I have used that method a time or two and you are right on, great Post! I think it would take at least a steak to lure me to the camps:D

But if it came down to going to a concentration camp or slavery I would not go meekly. If it came to me loosing my freedoms guaranteed by the constitution, I would not go meekly, but it would be a last resort because I know what my actions would cause. I have first hand knowledge of them.

kestak
April 9, 2009, 10:06 AM
Greetings,

Sam06 is right. My familly was in Zaire in 1976 during the uprising and then in Republique Populaire Revolutionaire de Guinee in the end of the 80s (under Seku Taure) when the country went belly up. It was bad.

Thank you

gb_in_ga
April 9, 2009, 10:09 AM
Armed revolution is not legal or winnable any longer... Any one who contemplates this is unaware that the USofA is the most powerful military in the free world! Knowing this would negate the thought of a violent revolt!

Not legal -- true, but immaterial. NO revolution has ever been "legal" because no tyranny will ever condone the fighting against it, it isn't a survival trait for tyrants. Not antebellum, anyway. Legality comes during or after the fight. That captured/defeated revolutionaries have been prosecuted and executed for murder/treason throughout the ages is, of course, undeniable. It is the norm. But that doesn't factor into whether a revolution can or should occur. Mostly, they happen because those revolting have no other options, they have nothing to lose by doing so. They would have been murdered/enslaved no matter what. The cost for doing so was no worse than the cost for not doing so, and in doing so they give themselves and the people hope where there was no hope.

Not winnable -- not true. You make the assumption that the military will cling to the tyrants en masse. That hasn't been historically the case. Many, if not most, revolutions happen alongside and supported by mass defections of the standing military to the revolutionaries' side. The soldiers are of the people, you know. Added, you have to ask whether a sizable portion of the military will engage in operations against their own people? What portion of the military at any one time is composed of patriots? The point is that the overwhelming nature of our own military does not mean that revolution against our government is doomed to fail. Doing so makes the assumption that:
> the military will fight against their own people.
> the military will not substantially defect to the side of the revolutionaries, bringing their weapons with them.

Remember what happened in our own fratricidal war in the 1860's (that it wasn't a real revolution is a matter for another discussion thread, and doesn't really matter to this one). Substantial portions of the antebellum military went to the side of the Confederacy. Don't be so sure that much, if not most, of our military wouldn't do likewise should a modern day revolt occur against a truly tyranical .gov. That would tip the scales in the revolutionaries favor.

Remember as well the numerous revolutions during the formative years of Great Britain. Many were quashed, it is true. But many weren't, and helped make the ideological foundations of our own republic. Remember, as well, the revolution in Texas in the mid 1830's. The colonists were completely outclassed by the Mexican government forces, and yet they revolted anyway, they had no other options as free men. Outclassed or not, even without defections from the Mexican Army, they (we) still prevailed.

Al Norris
April 9, 2009, 10:24 AM
The prudent man does not shout, "Molon Labe," while there are still many other avenues with which to work with.

On the question of murder, the answer is actually very easy.

If you win your revolution, then it was not murder.

If you lose... All bets are off and being charged with murder is going to be the least of your worries.

What happens during this hypothetical conflict, if you are captured by the "Tories?" You will be held as a terrorist, at the very least. Your family and many of your friends, who may not be involved in the fighting, will be rounded up and treated as terrorists themselves. The other end of that stick is that you will be tried in a military court as a traitor.

Washington, Madison, Jefferson and their like are only remembered as Patriots, because they won. If they had lost, they would merely be a footnote in the annals of history, as Traitors to the Crown.

So it would be for those who would support armed insurrection.

Revolutions are not clean little things. They are dirty, messy affairs and filled with more blood and death than most Americans can think of... Let alone stand.

Sam06 and kestak have nailed it. gb_in_ga has completely overlooked the carnage in favor of his screed.

Wildalaska
April 9, 2009, 10:30 AM
I strongly believe we have elected and nominated individuals in the Government working against the good of the People for their own and their friends good. They know what they do will hurt (and currently hurts) millions of people but they do it again. What they do is legal, but they are morally criminals..and we are morally criminals to let them do it.


Then your answer is "yes, I would man the firing squads"

Your implication is that you feel that it is better to die quietly or live in chains than it is to resist tyranny as a free people.

I make no implication at all. All I want people to think about is whether they are willing to be part of the bloodshed.

Thomas Jeffersons words are very nice. I am sure that they were solace to White Russian soldiers thrown alive into rivers, or petit bourgeousie who mounted the scaffold over Liberte, Egalite, among others.

Remember...those who oppose the revolution are counterrevolutionaries :)

Wildalaska
April 9, 2009, 10:32 AM
If you win your revolution, then it was not murder.

Until history judges you :)

WildofftoanotherdayofagonyAlaska TM

gb_in_ga
April 9, 2009, 10:39 AM
gb_in_ga has completely overlooked the carnage in favor of his screed.
No, actually I haven't. I'm well aware that war is terrible, being a former soldier myself. Fratricidal war tends to be even worse. I'm well aware of that.

But the alternative to a JUSTIFIABLE fratricidal war is even worse yet. When the time comes, there will be no alternative and the carnage will happen one way or the other.

There are worse things than blood running in the streets. Genocide, kowtowing to tyrants and the extinguishing of the flame of liberty are among them.

There are things that are worth fighting for. There are things that are worth fighting, to the point of extinction, for.

If you don't understand that, then you just don't get it.

I go back to where I referred to post WWI Russia and '30s Germany. In the one case armed conflict happened where the wrong side won, and blood ran in the streets both during and after the conflict. Mass deaths happened even though people stood up to the tyrants, both in the streets as well as the gulags. We do know that the deaths would have occurred anyway. In the other, we have a massive bloody war that was MUCH worse than what would have happened had an internal revolution happened at the proper time. Genocide, slavery and massive battlefield casualties. The blood ran freely in the streets as well as in the death camps. Millions upon millions of needless deaths. All because the people did not stand up to a slick talking genocidal tyrant.

Sam06
April 9, 2009, 10:45 AM
There is another element to this that has not been discussed; What is the rest of the world going to do while armed revolution is happening in America? NATO the UN, Canada, Mexico, Russia, China: what are they going to be doing while all this is going on? Not watching it on CNN I can guarantee that. I am not as smart as some on this forum but I cannot think of a single Armed Revolution that has not had some kind of outside intervention of some type(In the last 20 years).

So while we are all running around with our deer rifles, dressed like ninjas what is the rest of the world going to do while the most powerful country in the world self destructs? I will tell you they will dismantle it. Then you would have a 3 or 4 way gun fight going on and that = Anarchy. If we were lucky I could see the US looking like Somalia. That is not a very pleasant picture in my mind.

kestak
April 9, 2009, 10:50 AM
Greetings,

Wow...Very nice conversation. I am impressed.

One thing people must keep in mind: The Amerecan revolution war lasted from 1775 to 1783 and all along less than 10% of the population participated actively and NEVER the majority of the population would think it will work.

One other thing: France revolution was 2 revolutions in one. The first one against the Monarchy and the second one against the revolutioners. The guillotines severed the heads of those who sent the monarchs to the guillotine a few months later. Napoleon was saved at the last moment. Also, the French revolution was litterally the first socialist revolution. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite is based on socialistic dogma.

Thank you


Thank you

gb_in_ga
April 9, 2009, 11:00 AM
So while we are all running around with our deer rifles, dressed like ninjas what is the rest of the world going to do while the most powerful country in the world self destructs? I will tell you they will dismantle it. Then you would have a 3 or 4 way gun fight going on and that = Anarchy. If we were lucky I could see the US looking like Somalia. That is not a very pleasant picture in my mind.
Nor in mine, and yes I realize that. The thing you don't get is that the picture in my mind of what happens if we DON'T do that at the appropriate time is just as bad if not worse.

I'd rather have war and anarchy in the pursuit of or the resurrection of freedom with the hope that something good may come of it in the end, than the certainty of living in chains and/or dieing quietly in the gulag/death camps.

Deer rifles? Yep, at first. That doesn't mean that I'd be fighting with such long term -- just long enough to obtain something more appropriate. Remember the rationale behind the FP-45 Liberator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator). The purpose wasn't to fight the war using a crappy pistol like that, the point was that it was good enough to shoot an enemy soldier and take his weapon. Historically, the peasants may have started their uprising with pitchforks but they picked up pikes and muskets as they went along.

johnwilliamson062
April 9, 2009, 11:00 AM
The really interesting thing is going to be what the reaction to this 4/15 Tea Party will be.
TO my knowledge this is really the first time a mass demonstration has occurred in the US involving primarily tax payers. For a government official that is very scary.

Of course I don't think it deserves to be called the "Tea Party" because the Boston Tea Party was obviously a little destructive and this is supposed to be quite calm and I expect it to turn out to be quite calm.

How about a bunch of guys dressed up like al quaida going to gas stations and running the pumps into the streets. Boy the EPA would love that. I hope the thread doesn't get locked over that. It was the least effective/most absurd example of a tax protest modeled after the Boston Tea Party I could come up with.

Mike Irwin
April 9, 2009, 11:17 AM
OK, this is starting to get just a little on the silly side with some of the comments that have been posted recently.

Ninjas?

Al Queda gas pump jockeys?

Sigh.

I'd like to thank everyone for keeping it on top, and within the boundaries I originally laid out, for as long as you did.

But, it's time for the thread to close.