Armed Revoultion Possible, Not So Difficult

reply to post by DeadFlagBlues

You're wanting to argue a non-event.

No arming up and getting on line to attack Washington. Some event, sends ripples through America, which then requires the States to reassert their authority.

And THEN that Constitutional restoration will be enforced by whatever means are required.

reply to post by Sky watcher


You are right about that, we have seen how ineffective UN troops can be. But nations that act independently like oh Russia or China can give us a tiny bit of a heart brake.

reply to post by Ismail


Exactly, man.

Welcome to Russia circa 1917 but with 300 million guns circulating. It's not the guns that would be dangerous, but the extreme measures one would put it to use while "defending" (coercing) their personal ideology.

Originally posted by earthman4
The article is apples and America is Oranges. No relevance whatsoever. Treason is punishable by death. To call yourselves a ressistance is a joke. You have not been invaded. Your archaic notions of nationalism will be crushed by patriots. You don't have to love it or leave it, just die in your pool of self-pity.

Then for me it is simple..... Treason it is.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

God, we're so thoroughly screwed if you have people agreeing with this man. I doubt any of you have thought about the logisitics behind an armed revolution in America. Take your beerhats off for a few hours and run it through your head a few times and see if you think it's even slightly feasible in the process of making your life better.

There is no logistics behind a gurilla style warfare, its a small group of men who hit and run and cause amok,if iraqis can d we can do better.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

. . .

- No/Ambiguous Enemy

Who are you shooting at? The "Gubmint?" Who's the government? The "shock troops?" You mean our family, friends, and spouses? Any particular branch of the government or military?

You couldn't possibly answer the question, because not even the man who wrote this article on the "ease" of this whole ordeal has his enemy. Most people out of ignorance declare themselves "Republican" or "Democrat," though really lying somewhere in the middle. Do those people kill eachother?

I am neither Republican or Democrat. My enemy is anyone who has a hand in taking away my, and my countrymen's rights. This has been stated many times before. You all seem to fail at grasping that concept.

- Ideology

Who's going to "take lead" when this "movement" takes over? Do we restore the constitution and our current process of law and government? How would you ensure that those offices will be upheld as the one's that came before them turned out disasterous for the people of this republic. Do you give the huge Marxist/Communist movements their say? The Anarchists? The collective ignorance of the "right wing?" The ever confused "left?" Do we all get equal representation?

When the time comes that we need a leader, a leader will arise. They always have. Men are not born leaders . . .

As was said in every other thread on the subject. Plans to restore and protect the constitution and our rights are already in place

I don't know if you're a fan of history, but if you can understand the chaos that came after the Russian Revolution, you must know that "restoration" can be more dangerous than "renovation." They say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." But, further more, I would add "The road to hell is paved without thorough introspection of your good intentions."

We undertsand that it will be hell on earth. No one said it will be sunshine and kittens.

- Time/Duration of Conflict

How long before you and yours restore our union? If we can take any cues from the civil conflicts in Sri Lanka or even the never-ending tit for fat in Chechnya, will this go on forever? When is either side content with their compromise? How many innocent people have to die before y'all figure it out?

Seeing as how there's no enemy, there's no "sides" to this one, and there is no concrete distinctions between the people fighting, when would you hope to arrive at an "end point?"

Err . . . when our rights and freedoms have been taken back?

- Casualties

Speaking of the death toll. How many people who you would consider "enemy combatants" or even "collaboraters" are just regular innocent men and women that have no idea what side to take? The news would call an armed uprising "domestic terrorism." People living in the suburbs would believe you and yours to the scrutiny that is passed from the government controlled media. Could you kill somebody that "didn't know." Would they be in the wrong for not adhering to your movements "principles." That sounds a lot like the "fascism" that this movement is fighting, does it not?

People are free to make up their minds on their own. you are correct. ALOT of people will be sheeple on the matter. Education is the key. If we can educate the people (Tea Parties are helping in this regard, though more can and will be done), it can only bolster our ranks.

- Perspectives

Okay, so you're out for yours. You're convinced the government is so bad, it's course irreversable, that it has to be "overthrown!" There is no other way to end the greed, corruption, and oppression. That's you. What about the tens of millions who are content with what they have? What about the tens of millions who agree and are relatively okay with the (awful) form democratic representation they currently have. Hell, what about the tens of millions of people (who I would group myself under) who believe that with good will, unwaivering integrity, and collective bearing that things can be reversed. Are you or the man who wrote the article going to decide what is right and just?

I once remember a man who called himself "the decider," and I didn't agree with how that whole thing panned out.

And so you bring in the emotional side . . . :p

Most of the people who agree with the things right now are sheeple. They could care less one way or the other. The other group thinks we can change things by talking about it (your group) . . .

Tell me how that worked for Europe in the 1930's. Hell, tell me how that has workied for us in the last 40 years.

- Coercion

You're afraid of your rights being taken away. You're afraid of words on a bill that haven't been passed. YOU ARE AFRAID of things that go against your will that cannot and probably will not be immediately vetoed, either by the people or the politicians. Instead of doing your best to make a dignified stance and restoring the integrity of our political body, you subscribe to an armed resistance that's going to be the silver bullet to restore all the things you're so worked up about. You think the majority of people are going to be okay with thousands of armed men encroaching on their homes with their families inside? Even if your intentions are pure, could you imagine how afraid they would be of the unkonw? How threatened people would be? There's no smiley face pamphlet you could give them to make them swallow the visual of rugged armed men running through their neighborhoods as they're watching the news about a "domestic insurgency." How do you think that would turn out for your movement?

Could you then rely on peaceful means to quail the dissent towards you? Could you afford to try? Which side is "better?"

Like I said before . . . it will be in the education.

People were fine with our government, until they started to get educated . . .

[edit on 12/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

I'm still on the fence with this whole revolution thing. On one hand, I think it would be great for a time; new leaders, a fresh system, and all the rest. But what about after a decade or two when the novelty has worn off? I mean, we'll still pretty much have the same system of government, don't you think the snakes will just sneak back in to power and ruin it all again?

Furthermore, this article was written back in 1994, at the beginning of the Clinton years. I don't mean to turn this into a partisan issue, but does anyone think that's a coincidence? And here we are again, at the beginning of another Democrat's term in office, talking about revolution. I'm not defending anyone at this point, I just thought I'd point it out.

reply to post by dooper


It may be a non-event, Dooper, but it's a non-event that in thought is completely reckless and would have incredibly tragic repercussions for everybody, even those not involved. Your suggestions is happening right now without all the arm-chair patriots threatening all out armed revolution. There's been many states re-affirming their sovereignty, which is good, and how it should be, minus the genius input from the peanut gallery.

I read an article the other day about the amount of guns and ammo purchased in united states just this past year its enough to outfit 2 armies. Plus i think that most of the armed forces would stand on the side of the people NOT fed goverment. As far as state governors are concerned I think they are puppets most of them are anyway...

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


Not the logistics of an attack. Pulling the triggers of my guns is one of the easiest things to do, and marksmanship takes just a little more effort. Nobody is debating the logistics of how to shoot, but who to shoot. You tell me one target that would be justified and I'll call you a liar.

In the fantasy land of people overthrowing the goverment, the next goverment would be much, much more corrupt. The suffering would be much greater. Hell, you guys don't even know what you are fighting against, let alone what you are fighting for. Try to make a list. Read "A Tale of Two Cities". Decide what you are really bitching about. Angry shooting in the air does nothing.

reply to post by xxpigxx


You and your "countrymen" have the hand in taking away your rights. The government isn't taking anything they're not given. The people are the government. There are people exploiting being in office, but given, those are the people elected by more than HALF of the people. How do you figure out who to go after and who not to? I'd like to see the rationale behind that.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

You and your "countrymen" have the hand in taking away your rights. The government isn't taking anything they're not given. The people are the government. There are people exploiting being in office, but given, those are the people elected by more than HALF of the people. How do you figure out who to go after and who not to? I'd like to see the rationale behind that.

1.) I had no hand in it. I gave my rights to no one. They were taken from me.

2.) HALF the people did not vote for the current administration. Do more research before you throw that one out there.

3.) Like the people involved are going to give you a list of names? Good game.

[edit on 12/5/2009 by xxpigxx]

reply to post by xxpigxx


1. I don't know if you know this, but in this republic, it's "Majority rules." Majority in this instance is more than half, as half the people are divided by simple ideologies.

2. What rights have been taken away from you?

3. I'm not asking specific marks, I'm talking about who do you view as the enemy? Don't tell me it's just as simple as just "them." I would like to believe that someone who is talking as if he's going to partake in a revolution would be more intelligent and introspective than that.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by poedxsoldiervet

 

Not the logistics of an attack. Pulling the triggers of my guns is one of the easiest things to do, and marksmanship takes just a little more effort. Nobody is debating the logistics of how to shoot, but who to shoot. You tell me one target that would be justified and I'll call you a liar.

That is easy. Washington D.C. And all of the cronies and stooges there. Then the people could declassify ever things.

However, I do not think it has reached the point that is necessary to burn our capitol to the ground.

reply to post by xxpigxx


Sure. Take France after the second world war. I should know, I live there. After the allies won, you had armed groups of people, with no-one to answer to, who used the power bestowed upon them by their guns to "settle" any "personal grievances", outside of the conflict with the Nazis. Some guy who talked bad to your wife ten years ago, that annoying neigbour, your old landlord etc....

That was in France, which was culturally, fairly united. Now picture America. Lots more guns. More social groups than you can count. If the insurgents won, you would have the KKK and the white power faschists turn on the afro-american ghettos, and the latinos. The Communists and Anarchists would attack the faschists and conservatives, before butchering each other. Latino gangs vs black gangs, vice versa, I don't even know where the other minorities would stand.

Two words. TOTAL CHAOS. If eventually someone won, I can assure you that it would'nt stop at "bringing the constitution back". It would stop at a military dictatorship, and mass genocide. Full stop.

reply to post by Ismail


Doesnt it seem we are headed that way anyway? Regardless of who does it?

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


Well, thank god for that.

As there are tens of thousands of people who work for our government in D.C. and not all of them have an agenda. They're mostly normal people, going about their lives.

The reason this will never work because targeting "D.C. and all the stooges" would be the reason you wouldn't garner any support.

And who determines who dies? You? Who determines what a "stooge" is? You? A regular guy like you or myself? The hypocrisy and the lack of intellectual rationalization is incredible.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by DeadFlagBlues]

Americans have forgotten that they ARE the goverment. You would be shooting yourselves. Vote, don't shoot. FBI, go get these guys, they scare me. You have a complaintant, do your duty,pigs. Trace the IPs.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by xxpigxx

 

1. I don't know if you know this, but in this republic, it's "Majority rules." Majority in this instance is more than half, as half the people are divided by simple ideologies.

2. What rights have been taken away from you?

3. I'm not asking specific marks, I'm talking about who do you view as the enemy? Don't tell me it's just as simple as just "them." I would like to believe that someone who is talking as if he's going to partake in a revolution would be more intelligent and introspective than that.

1.) Just to let you know there are 300 million Americans, I don’t think 300 million Americans voted. (129,438,754 voted www.cnn.com... that’s not exactly everyone, and there are appx 200 million people over the age of 18.)

2.) The patriot act clearly is a violation of the US constitution, the fact that you as an American can be taken away without a day in court, and without even an attorney present, is truly cause for concerns.

3.) The enemy of this country is none other then our government; they have been the bad guys for some time.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by poedxsoldiervet]