When is armed resistance to the government acceptable?

With recent events, this becomes an important question. Civil unrest is a growing problem in the US, and with things like the patriot act, bank bailouts, and so much more, it seems like an issue that will continue to keep growing.

With a government controlled not by the people but outside forces in the form of corporations and special interests. The legal ways of fighting against corruption are becoming more and more futile as time moves on. Will frustration created by this cause more armed civil unrest in the future?

Our nations founders made it clear that there are and will be times when revolution is necessary. That such was the case is built into the constitution. We even have the second amendment protecting the citizens rights to remained and armed organized populace partly for this express purpose.

Now I'm not saying we should take up arms yet, but I want to know when it moves from being automatically considered to be terrorism to take up arms to actually full filling the rights and duty set forth by our forefathers to protect the citizenry from a government that's no longer for the people.

This seems to be and important line to define. When is it terrorism, and when is it our duty to each other in defense of house and country?

There comes a time where protesting, lawsuits, and other less violent means become laughable to a truly entrenched political force, and are about as effective as spinning in circles screaming "I'm a fairy lalalala!!!!"

When is revolution not only acceptable but the duty of every citizen in defense of the foundations the country was built upon? At what point do those in power cross the line, and at what point does the futility of peaceful means of resistance require taking up arms?

Are you of the belief armed resistance and revolution is never acceptable? Where do you draw the line?

When I joined the Navy I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I used to wonder what constituted a "domestic enemy", I don't any more.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Well enlighten me? Because domestic can come from the citizens or government both. Whichever one is anti-constitution is the domestic enemy. This is not limited to the citizenry. You're not being very clear what your definition of domestic enemy is.

The government is not the constitution and through corruption can become directly opposed to it.

a reply to: Puppylove

American history explains this.

Currently, the President is attempting to convince the American public to give up a little bit of their power in the form of gun control. The stock market has been selling off ever since he started speaking.

Real Americans are armed and understand the importance of being mature and responsible. The other folks are just little children flicking their phone devices at work. Grown ups will take care of this.

a reply to: Puppylove

Armed resistance should only happen after all peaceful solutions have been exhausted. Once a Government becomes burdensome to the people it must be replaced.

a reply to: Puppylove

When is armed resistance to the government acceptable?

It's not a question of acceptability, It's a question of practicability.

Our dystopian future is assured now that tptb have grown so strong as to quell any attempt at revolution. They weren't stupid. They Knew a type of revolution was possible and they made plans to deal with it. Do you think the militarization of the domestic LEOs was just some kind of fluke?

There was a time when a peaceful revolution would have been possible but they were to busy waving the flag and voting for Republicans and fighting BS wars.

a reply to: Metallicus

Right but how does one determine when such has occurred? I've seen people speak in ways that implicate that taking up arms is instantly to be defined as terrorism, period, end of story.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: JIMC5499

Well enlighten me? Because domestic can come from the citizens or government both. Whichever one is anti-constitution is the domestic enemy. This is not limited to the citizenry. You're not being very clear what your definition of domestic enemy is.

The government is not the constitution and through corruption can become directly opposed to it.

The poster is probably referring to the Kenyan Communist in the White House.

a reply to: olaru12

Only true if the citizens in the military and police force choose the corrupt government over their legal right to fight the corrupt government should the time come. It's arguable that it is the police and military's duty to support the citizenry if they are in the right. In fact I'd say the oath to defend the constitution from threats both foreign and domestic demands the military join a legitimate revolution.

Is a matter of whether military citizens are capable and willing to support the populace if in the right, or if TPBTis too entrenched in their organizations and the citizens that make up the military and police force too indoctrinated to join the citizens cause.

a reply to: Puppylove
I would think when you have millions protesting on the streets, millions not just thousands or a few hundred thousand in a nation so populous.
Then if the people are ignored and shot or beaten en masse for protesting, maybe it becomes appropriate to use more drastic means.

...but while the majority are too lazy and apathetic to get off their arses watching crap TV, nope, it ain't gonna happen, and noor should it if that's what the majority want.

a reply to: grainofsand

So is based upon people en masse deciding to stop being armchair warriors then?

It's interesting thinking about this BLm fiasco in terms of your question.. The govt has been very quiet about what is going on in Oregon right now.. Under Obamas reign it was quiet about it in 2014 as well..

If Trump were to be elected, I wonder how the govt would react to this sort of thing... Probably completely different if you ask me..

My answer would be after the govt makes a really big mistake, one along the lines of storming into a situation like the one in Oregon right now and killing a bunch of citizens.. Then it would become more acceptable than it is now at least.. If it did happen, it could easily become a runaway situation.. There are a lot of Americans who are itching for that fight, even though it probably wouldn't have anywhere close to the outcome they're looking for..

a reply to: Puppylove
Being an armchair warrior is irrelevant if one follows it up with 'real' protests and demonstrations in real life.
So long as the overwhelming majority are too apathetic to do that then no, the minority have no mandate for shooting cops, invading the Whitehouse, or whatever.

a reply to: grainofsand

If you are protesting in real life I wouldn't say one is an armchair warrior. Armchair warrior by my understanding is one who complains online but never does anything in the real world to change things. If you get out of your armchair, not an armchair warrior.

a reply to: Puppylove
I recently read an op ed on CNN about the people occupying the buildings in the National Forrest. The writer said that it was obvious that these people were 'domestic terrorists'. It wasn't obvious to me. I actually find their action a good idea and thought provoking and the response of law enforcement to be good too. Though, a couple loud people in this 'occupying group' have, in the past, said things I find abhorrent on other issues..I was like "Good for them".
I find this example acceptable. They have a point.

source

I honestly think it is too late. Any armed resistance would probably fail. Most people are zombies at this point. Too focused on their own little world to see what is going on. Too many people are willing to trade freedom for security. Our politicians have been corrupted.

YOu have to remember that average citizen can't even name the VP or Speaker of the House. Much less understand the limits that are supposed to be imposed on government.

We are a frog in a boiling pot at this point.

I've always believed that man's natural inclination is tyranny. We are slowly moving in that direction. Most people can't think long term. The moves that lead us towards tyranny happen over decades. Give up a little here, a little there. The next thing you know, you wake up one day and have a boot on your neck wondering what happened.

When you lose the civil power to replace the government. I cannot think of any likelihood of that happening where I live.

a reply to: Quauhtli
They'd try to cover it up like they did in Waco...

a reply to: Puppylove
I

protest in real life over all sorts of issues, I have destroyed GM crops, disrupted fox hunts and been 'kettled' by police while protesting the government in London.

I protest and argue my politics robustly online as well so that is my keyboard warrior side.

Regardless, my point stands, so long as the overwhelming majority of a nation are apathetic then armed uprising by the minority would be inappropriate.

I would think if voting becomes suspended or proven fraud that disallows changing of the government through the democratic process, then discussions can happen.

I don't think that has ever happened in the US so far, and I suspect it wont. Keep in mind its a constitutional republic. the constitution is preserved according to the SCOTUS so far (bicker with them if you disagree). Having things happen you dislike doesn't mean revolt, it simply means try to change peoples minds and elect new leaders to have things go your way