So when is it appropriate to rebel?

I have a question to pose to the ATS collective…I’ve noticed on many of the talk shows lately that most of the talking heads on all sides are mentioning that violence is not the answer when referring to Tea Party’rs and people that speak of revolution. Let me say right now that I am in no way advocating or suggesting that violence is the answer. But I’m curious at what point the readership here on ATS feel it is appropriate for “the people” (that would be us in a very general sense) to take physical steps against the government. And what conditions do you think will be present when that point arrives?
My opinion is that we are nowhere near the point of physically rising up against the Federal, State or local governments. And I’m of the belief that before anything the likes of a revolution like our forefathers undertook starts many other avenues and options need to happen. For instance, massive amounts of people will stop paying their taxes, large amounts of people will either be homeless or be squatting in homes that they do not pay for any longer, smaller cities will start to go bankrupt putting additional strain on counties which will likely fail as well. Once all of this starts to happen the country will be much closer to “the brink” of revolution than ever. IF we reach that point either government will have to bend somewhat to the majority or the majority will rebel. Thoughts, opinions?

have this down. take the polictical right or left wing approach and do nothing and let our kids and grandkids on the street as doing the right thing is the right approach! thus saving yourself and harms way and will allow you one more day!

The system would have us believe

Never.

I think it is already starting. I think a good question is when will there be martial law. Once we see martial law, I believe what you would consider to be physical by the people would happen shortly after. Once riots start pretty much anywhere here in the U.S. be ready for martial law, then get ready for the war imo.

S+F for an excellent question that I am sure many have been thinking about. I think you are the one with guts enough to lay it out there and for that nice work.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Smell The Roses]

Well the first one began with the "Shot Heard Around The World" in Boston, Mass. When British troops fired upon Colonials killing several of them. So when would it be appropriate now?
Probably when a similar situation occurs, if our troops or police fire onto a protesting crowd and kill some of them. Of course it would have to be pretty bad for people to be protesting to that extreme. Perhaps if the economy tanks again (because of inflation). It could happen but I don't think it's nearly that dire yet.

I've asked this myself here, but I have come to find most people can't really fathom this idea. I think that the government has given reason enough to based upon the writings of the founders. However, I believe that most people will continue to willingly accept increasingly insane taxes, spending, control and regulation. I would go so far as to say they would even accept a North American Union and or consolidated currency. It would take regular occurrences of troops/police killing and raping people in their homes, or a cancellation of the Super Bowl to get people to actually take up arms.

reply to post by Wolf321


This is the sad, sad truth.

It was said best in our founding document:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Our Founding Fathers showed wisdom beyond their years and their times and they new that history would repeat itself. The government and powers too knew this and so to prevent this they used a technique that could not be forseen and could not be prevented - they managed to brainwash and manipulate every last person into believing that the loss of their rights was necessary for their well being and protection. They continue to do this time and time again, even today.

Luckily people are waking up to this, but it is a slow process. Even those who do wake up to the situation fail to realize that it is not only their minds that have been manipulated - it is the entire system itself. Over the course of 200 years, evil conniving minds were able to create a system that controls everything and destroys and dissent that would stand in its way. It has created a system based on lies and illusions that even the people who notice the facade for what it really is - they are still too blind to see that it is all the same facade beneath the surface.



This system will never change at the voting booth. New congressmen and a different president will never take back the laws that have successfully destroyed the Constitutional Republic. People have become so used to the flawed system that they actually believe that this is how it was meant to be. They couldn't be more wrong.



The time to rebel has long past. It happened a long, long time ago when the people first stood up against the federal government in the name of their rights. The people lost that battle and so have been loosing battle after battle but they don't even realize it.



Not many people are going to like the idea of rebelling. In fact, there are many that will be adamantly against it. It will be the minority, the few that see it as necessity - as the only way to rid the country of the corrupt system and reseat the Constitutional Republic - that will have to fight and rebel against our handlers. With any hope more will join in when the time comes and we will win that fight - but there will still be those that doubt revolution. They always will.

It will only be when the dust settles, when all the spoke clears and the little things in life start to shine through for what they really are that people start to realize that what we are now, what we WERE before the revolution... whatever it was it wasn't freedom. And yeah, maybe this revolution caused some problems for a lot of people, but we are strong and we are going to get by... better and stronger then ever, with a new sense of community, a new sense of liberty, and a new sense of freedom.




So it is appropriate now. It is time to end the facade. It's time to open up the doors to our lives and live them on our standards, not based on the standards of the powers in Washington.

Freedom isn't based on time - freedom is infinite and it will always be waiting for those who stand up and demand it.

When the government begins to persecute the innocent. No more, no less.

So when is it appropriate to rebel?

When life becomes so unbearable that you really don't care any more if you live or die. That is when!

reply to post by PatesHatriots


You forget that the government chooses who the "innocent" and "guilty" are. They are one law away from making people that own dogs "guilty" of violation of the "Canine Ownership Act" because they didn't have their dog licensed.

With this mentality, they could kill us all as long as they made enough laws to make us guilty of something.

reply to post by PhoenixDemon



I am all for doing something as radical as BOYCOTTING everything ...
At least long enough for them to fold ..but none of us are willing to not eat for a few days or not go to work for a couple days or not buy anything for a few days or not pay taxes on April 15............
And the problem with massive protests is one bad apple can certainly start a total chaotic scene and many will fall into line (in panic) and then we will all be in an even worse position than we were before (they would crack down even more and take away even more of our freedoms due to being so paranoid of the people rising up) ......

Originally posted by PatesHatriots
When the government begins to persecute the innocent. No more, no less.

If this is the standard by which you gauge when it is appropriate for revolution, then aren't the people way behind schedule?

Taking just the death penalty alone as an example, and although these executions have been handled almost exclusively by the states, but since 1973 when the death penalty was ruled Constitutional, at least 139 people have been exonerated of the charges against them, their convictions overturned, and were released from prison presumed innocent, just as you or I would be.

Of those 139 the average time span between conviction and release is 9.8 years and for 17 of those released, DNA played a significant role in their exoneration. While some were released simply because their previous trial in which they were convicted was in error and actual burden of proof was never proved, and instead a judge gave the jury a directed verdict, or some other sort of judicial malfeasance that amounted to persecution of what must always be presumed innocent, but for the purposes of this argument, nor should we necessarily assume the entire 139 released were indeed innocent of the charges brought against them, but that they were released and exonerated, means that in a legal sense, they were declared innocent, and that then qualifies them as being innocent who were persecuted.

The numbers I have offered were taken from the Death Penalty Information Center, and below is a quote from that site, it should be noted however, that when reading the information for yourself in that site you will notice that the 139 listed is six more than is claimed to exist on that list in the quote below. Obviously that page needs to be updated, but the quote is a compelling argument to their innocence:

We believe the term "exonerated" is entirely appropriate to refer to the individuals on this list, which now numbers 133 individuals. Exonerate means to clear, as of an accusation, and seems to come from the Latin "ex" and "onus" meaning to unburden. That is precisely what has occurred in these cases. The defendants were convicted, given a burden of guilt, and then that burden was lifted when they were acquitted at a re-trial or the prosecution dropped all charges after the conviction was reversed. These are not individuals who received a lesser sentence or who remained guilty of a lesser charge related to the same set of circumstances. All guilt was lifted by the same system that had imposed it in the first place. Our justice system is the only objective source for making such a determination.

While these 139 were indeed exonerated does indicate that our justice system works as best it can to prevent the persecution of the innocent, it is merely an indicator and what can't be known by a list of those exonerated since 1973 is how many innocent people have been executed? I don't think that Amenesty International is being hyperbolic when they assert:

The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights. By working towards the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, Amnesty International USA's Death Penalty Abolition Campaign looks to end the cycle of violence created by a system riddled with economic and racial bias and tainted by human error.

To further illustrate the heinous persecution of innocent people by the government, below are examples of wrongful convictions:

Arizona: Ray Krone, released in 2002

* Spent 10 years in prison in Arizona, including time on death row, for a murder he did not commit. He was the 100th person to be released from death row since 1973. DNA testing proved his innocence.

Illinois: Madison Hobley, Aaron Patterson, Stanley Howard and LeRoy Orange, pardoned in 2003

* Sent to death row on the basis of "confessions" extracted through the use of torture by former Chicago Police Commander Jon Burge and other Area 2 police officers in Chicago. They were pardoned by outgoing Governor George Ryan, who also commuted the remaining 167 death sentences in Illinois to life imprisonment.

North Carolina: Jonathon Hoffman, exonerated in 2007

* Convicted and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of a jewelry store owner. During Hoffman's first trial, the state's key witness, Johnell Porter, made undisclosed deals with the prosecutors for testifying against his cousin. Porter has since recanted his testimony, stating that he lied in order to get back at his cousin for stealing money from him.

There can be no argument that these people and presumably many more have been either wrongfully executed, or have had to endure on average nearly a decade of persecution by the government, before finally being released. Of course, it is a low number comparatively speaking and perhaps for some, a number low enough to justify the error, but it is that an nothing more, a justification for state sponsored persecution.

The death penalty serves as merely a dramatic opening salvo, since 1973 of the governments willingness to declare war on the people. It was just a few years earlier in 1971 when then President Richard Nixon officially declare a "war on drugs", which historically had all ready begun long before that, but was elevated to a national priority during this time.

This so called "war on drugs" has created a black market industry that according to a report by Foreign Policy in Focus, (FPF), as high as $100 billion dollars a year in the U.S. and a $400 billion dollar a year trade world wide, accounting for 8% of all trade across the world. In the meantime, the U.S. federal government, primarily through their administrative agency the Federal Drug Administration, (FDA), has advocated the prescribed use of drugs for even longer than the "war on drugs" has been fought in the U.S., and where Congress will demand that pharmaceutical companies place warning labels on the drugs they sell, to the adverse side effects that these drugs can cause, including warnings of potential suicidal urges that may come when ingesting certain "anti-depressants", in effect placing their seal of approval for consumption of these dangerous drugs, while claiming to fight a "war on drugs" because of the dangers these drugs cause.

As of 2008 there were 2,424,279 people incarcerated in the U.S., and of those more than 2 million people, 1,518,559 reside in either federal or state prisons. Approximately 1 in 18 males is in prison or being monitored by some government agency. Figures from the year 2002 tell us that 93.2% of the prison population were males, and about 10.4% of the U.S. black male population was behind bars, compared to the 1.3% of white population, and 2.4% Hispanic population. The U.S. leads the world by far in incarceration rates, with 754 people out of 100,000 and with the U.S. having only 5% of the worlds population the population of the prisons in the U.S. amount to 23.4% of the worlds population.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice, as cited by Wikipedia in the year 2008 more than 7.3 million people were either in prison, on probation, or parole, by the end of that year. This amounts to 1 in every 31 adults being wards of the state in some form or another, due to conviction and incarceration. As early as 1994 reports indicated that the outcome of the "war on drugs" had resulted in the incarceration of one million people in the U.S. each year. Out of those drug arrests, the fourth largest cause of those arrests were for possession of cannabis, at 225,000 of the million drug "offenders", figures that are 25 years old, that show both federal and state governments more than willing to persecute people for possession of a "controlled substance". Whether these "drug offenders" are innocents being persecuted by the government becomes a valid question, in light of the standard you've supplied us.

Are people who use recreational drugs guilty of a crime? Both the federal and state legislatures have written legislation declaring the act a crime, but is it? What is a crime? In its most general sense, crime means a wrong doing classified by the state or legislature as either a misdemeanor or felony, which then demands we ask; what is a misdemeanor, what is a felony?. In general a misdemeanor is an offense less than a felony and a much more serious crime. Take note, however, that when offering specific examples of felonies these dictionaries provide crimes that present a clearly defined victim, as opposed to the so called "victimless crimes" or consensual crimes of drug use, possession or marketing.

Not to mention gambling, prostitution and other consensual acts deemed illegal. There is compelling evidence that the government is indeed persecuting innocent people. The O.P.'s question is pertinent, timely and valid. I believe with all my heart that the "velvet revolutions" in Eastern Europe last century marked an evolution in revolution, and change can be brought about through peaceful means, yet vigilance constant.

It is appropriate to rebel at this point.

All semantics set aside, corruption is peaking more and more every day, rebellion has already started.

Personally i think rebelling has no appropriate time. Calling something appropriate means that it is accepted and understood but i dont think the people or institutions you would be rebelling against would think it appropriate. If your unsatisfied with your life, your country, your government then rebel. Stand up and do something. Rebelling can take many forms but i doubt very seriously if violence is needed at this point. I dont think this country is so far gone that peaceful demonstrations and the people massing togther wont work. Everyone coming together as one voice and shouting to our leaders we want things different will work. At least it should be tried first. Violence is never the answer unless given no other choice. These people who want to plot to overthrow the government and attack my country from within by killing people are just crazy and need to be shot for treason. First off i havent seen one militia person ever who i think looked like they had anough sense to run this country any better than the ones we have now. They look like they could barely recite the first line of the declaration and probobly know nothing about the constitution except they wanna fight for it. Nut jobs walking around with a gun in one hand a bible in the other. Yep thats what i want running my new country. Anyways, i am all for rebelling and standing up against whatever tyranny you feel your living with. I encourage my kids to stand up against me when they feel the need. It shows backbone and a willingness to not stand for being treated unfairly. I like that. SHows heart and courage. My only thing with them is be respectful when you do it and make yourself heard. If you come at me with vulgar words and violent attitude you will not be met with understanding. Kinda the same with everything in life if you know what i mean.
So stand up, rebel, and make your voice heard. Gather people who belive the same as you do and never stop fighting until you make the change you want. Who cares if its appropriate so long as you feel it is. As my ol man always said, always stand up for what you think is right!!!!

When the government says so.. No, people get a chance to "rebel" during election times. Instead of blaming "them" who control the media,cheat on ballots etc we should be addressing the ignorance surrounding people and politics today. Some people only pay attention during election time and vote on the celebrity factor rather than policies, some simply don't get themselves involved in politics at all. In a landslide victory it doesn't matter how sneaky you are in vote rigging, you are going to lose. You can't rebel against such a massive federal government and their lackies in the populace any other way.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Solomons]

When absolutely spoken word fails and not beforehand, if spoken word can prevent the apocolypse why not employ it.

You get further by just using your voice. By using a weapon makes you a threat as there is a standing order that those who take up arms against The USA are to be treated like domestic terrorists. Once labeled a dom terrorist, it's worse then being labeled as a child molestor/pedophile.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by TheImmaculateD1]

the thing is, at the moment most people are pretty comfortable with their lives, they have food in their belly a roof over their head and the MSM to dumb them down, your revolution is a long way off

The date to rebel is on November 2 2010.

That is when you get to decide to throw out the people that have been there for years and have spent those years flushing our country down the toilet and put in NEW people that haven't been corrupted by the system.

Then in the next general election YOU DO THE SAME THING!

And the election after that, and the election after that. Always replacing the old with the new and never ever letting them get too comfortable in their offices.

Goodmorning ATS...Wow, woke up to a lot to read. The one thing that seems to be constant in the replies is that, at some point IT IS appropirate to rebel. Another thing that kind of hit me is in order to have a "revolution" it would take massive organization. Unfortunately I think the way most of the laws are written, any such organization (speaking to the action of organizing) would be a criminal act. Kind of a catch 22. But beyond that, I don't think enough people are ready to join a protest against the government let alone commit violence against any government. But as the protests grow in size, and the taxes keep building up we grow ever closer to a breaking point.

Another thing this post has got me to consider is that the movement towards a North American Union would be a step the PTB would use to mitigate any chance of an uprising. If the U.S. troops won't attack or keep the citizenry in line, maybe the NAU troops will?

My final thought for now is that even if we slip so far down the hole that we end up in a NAU, at some point people can always wake up en mass and rebel. I just hope it doesn't go down that road.

reply to post by whatukno


I hear you...And I agree we all need to vote the current administration out. But, I'm very afraid that we just end up replacing them with the same type of people we vote out.

I hate to use the terminology, but it really seems that we are developing a ruling class and a servent class. I mean c'mon, the odds of an average man reaching the presidential office are pretty null. I'm pretty sure out founding fathers looked to prevent this from happening.