It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: eXia7
Simple answer there: the 2nd Amendment. They come after that and my wife and I are outa here in a heartbeat. There's no way we could live in the US as "disarmed"; its just too dangerous.
originally posted by: onequestion
My back is already broken I'm just waiting for the situation to hit critical mass.
originally posted by: MrSpad
Modern revolts tend to be the result of long term economic problems added to heavy handed government tactics. When food gets expensive and your college age citizen suffer from very high unemployment you get discontent. Elimination of democracy, removing opposition parties and removing free press and expression, random murders of "disloyal" citizens and basically removing peoples abilities to blow off steam. These are all key pressure points for a revolt. Shooting of unarmed protesters tends to be the match that starts the fire. That brings dissatisfaction within the military and when then that happens side changes begin and a true revolt will begin. You basically have to push people to a point where turning your nation into warzone like Syria is preferred to everyday life. Of course you would then need outside backing. Americans for instance have guns but, they would be worthless in a modern conflict. The logistics of supplying and maintaining so many different type weapons would be impossible, not to mention training and operations being near impossible as well. So and outside source of weapons with standard ammo would be need ASAP so the population could be rearmed and trained by military that change sides. Of course in the US, if the population is armed they are likely to shoot at the troops first and ruin any sympathy the rebels would gain from being peaceful and unarmed. It is ironic that being armed would likely make a revolt harder in the US.
originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: eXia7
I think censorship of the internet, I would assume more surveillance of phone calls goes with that. Then you wouldn;t be able to talk about guns or brain implants or corruption with anyone else to form a revolt.
originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: eXia7
I've heard one guy say that if they ever banned NFL or NASCAR he would riot. Never mind something that actually matters like massive government corruption or anything like that.
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: schuyler
Stop being rediculous.(sic)
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: schuyler
You've made many wonderful assumption but little do you know.
originally posted by: schuyler
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: schuyler
Stop being rediculous.(sic)
Why not answer the question?
You guys talk really big, but when it comes right down to it, you won't do jack. You do not have the training. You do not have the means or resources. You do not have the discipline. You do not have the wherewithal to affect change. You aren't going to "rebel" in the strict sense of the word. You may yell a lot. You may complain a lot. If the power goes out you may riot and burn a few buildings--usually of small business owners in your own neighborhood who are in the same position as you are.
The 'rebel talk' on ATS is completely toothless--and "ridiculous."