The First Shots of the Second American Revolution have been fired

Originally posted by DreamerOracle
What most Americans willing to start a revolution don't realise is....... What after and during.
During:
1.UN concerns over Americas Arsenals Nuclear and Chemical.
2. UN back intervention to secure said Armorments.
3. Coalition formed to take control of the Greater US to restore order.
4. The Coalition will be made up from mostly western nations (North Korea, China and Russia will try join the Coalition at this point or if not strike pre-emptively) intervening under UN sanctioned operations.
After:
Just look to Afghanastan or Iraq but on a bigger scale ...your Navy and Armies will be incorperated into Nato and the UN while the reconstruction and re-establishing of a working government was undertaken.

The above isn't a fairytale, it's a fact and a definite probability with emphisis on the Pre-Emptive strike... Revolution would be a gift horse the Brick nations wouldn't miss.

p.s Let me clarify.... "Pre- Emptive Invasion".

edit on 1-2-2013 by DreamerOracle because: (no reason given)

One step I did miss which would be at the start of a violent revolution as opposed to a Political one is..... Martial Law.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by Daedalus
i would TOTALLY not trust the U.N., or any other foreign power, or coalition of powers to preside over deliberations as to what is legal in these united states...

Originally posted by frazzle
I think taking secession to a foreign body for resolution would be a huge huge mistake.

Please let me clarify that I have little love or even respect for the UN as it currently stands. Also, I am not saying that the UN should decide what is legal in the US. Nor am I saying that this is the ideal situation. Ideally, the Federal Government would just see reason and accept that all people have the right to self determination in their form of government and let them go… (Not bloody likely BTW)

What I am saying is that if one (or several) of the States through a vote presented to the people made an appeal to the world based on that wish for help in mitigating the terms of their departure from the union it might get some actual traction.

The people of the State will be the one’s deciding what is right for them in terms of governance and based on the fact that all people in have the right of self determination it’s “legality” under US law is really a moot point. Of course the Federal Government has “ruled” the Union unbreakable…why would they not. That doesn’t make that “ruling” right or even necessarily binding.

The point will be that the world or some nations in it in hopes of preventing a second American Civil War which would devastate the world’s economy might want to step in and help mitigate the situation.

Some will side of course with the Federal Government if for no other reason than the dollar and stability. However, I think a good number of the nations of the world would look at this through a different prism altogether and in hopes of gaining hegemony in certain places would side with the State(s).

Also, in view of the fact that the US has almost universally sided with the break-away nations of the world in any similar scenario in the past 50 years a good many nations would want some payback and side with the State(s).

If the US had to risk Civil War and international War at the same time – well I think they’d just accept the secession petitions.

I totally agree with your first paragraph. After that, not so much.

Its probably natural to go to a higher authority to resolve problems, its what we've been conditioned to do. But even in the workaday world, if your manager is messing with you and you go over his/her head with your complaints the chances are better than even that you will be labeled a trouble maker and very likely end up on the receiving end of a pink slip. That's because your manager has a "relationship" with the boss and, when push comes to shove, you don't. You don't review their usefulness or hold the power to fire them for cause ~ or no cause.

The same is true on the federal/global level and the head honchos at the UN don't even need your vote to exert top down power over you. But the globals and federals do share personal, professional relationships and mutual orgnizational ties through agencies, departments, ngos, foundations, clubs, public private partnerships and corporations. Many times malcontents and whistleblowers within their ranks would consider themselves lucky to receive a pink slip.

So they package their lies and tie them up with pretty pink frothy bows and don't care whether or not you accept their gifts as long as a portion of each nation's spokesmen, who are part of the club, do.

There probably isn't any better example of how it works from an international angle than the American Indians who were promised independence and sovereignty. And then the government went to work on the Dawes Act and Indian Act and more legislation making those on reservations citizens of the US. Whether they wanted to be or not

In 2007 the Lakota Sioux had finally had enough and filed secession papers with Washington DC and got back dead silence, so they next appealed their claim to the UN. Its been six years now.

August, 2012

A major catalyst for this has been the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and while the United States still hasn’t officially implemented UNDRIP, it’s coming.

indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com...

Promises and inaction. It wouldn't be wise to expect more.

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by xedocodex

 

nice to see you completely ignored what i said to you. hypocrisy is a hell of a thing, isn't it?

I tend to ignore completely false information coming from someone who is poorly informed.

Everything you have spouted off about in this thread is woefully incorrect and so delusional it is a waste of time to respond to.

reply to post by xedocodex


Funny, I would say the same thing about just about everything you have said in the thread

Enjoy!
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by seabag


i kinda agree...mental illness itself isnt the entire issue....

ok, say you have someone who is depressed...not "life isnt worth continuing, i think i'll end it" depressed...just sorta "f**k, my life sucks" depressed...manageable depression...

so they're depressed...psychiatrist perscrbes them one of the various pharmaceuticals available to combat depression...now it can go one of a few ways.. they can take it, and it helps them, and that's it. or they can take it, and it helps until they start hearing voices, that eventually make them lose it, and kill. or they can take it, it does nothing for the depression, and they lose it and start killing...

and it's not even like there's a way to gague whats going to happen, or how long it will take....they literally turn these people into ticking time bombs....it's basically like playing roulette, and hoping the ball doesn't land on "school shooting"

as i said before "Medicine that causes people to kill people isn't medicine"


look it up, it's all fascinating stuff...seems most, if not all of the school shooters were on some kind of psychiatric medication. and they weren't all shootings either..some of them were stabbings, and there was even a beating or two..

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by frazzle

This may sound way oversimplified but just the complete lack of respect ~ respect for self, for others, for property, for life ~ makes everybody crazy. Respect simply isn't being taught and I'd say it hasn't been since the "if it feels good, do it" generation. We've been sex,drugs and rock n rolled to insanity.

My mom, in her seventies, simplifies it even more than that. According to her, almost all of these mass killers "are just babies - near none of 'em over 25 years old. Ain't they got no upbringin's? Didn't their folks teach 'em nothin'?"

I just said "no, ma. they're all Doctor Spock babies."

Then she said "well he didn't know much about raisin' young-uns then, did he?"

i agree, most kids aren't raised with proper values anymore, but i still feel the overriding problem is these damned drugs..

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by xedocodex

 

nice to see you completely ignored what i said to you. hypocrisy is a hell of a thing, isn't it?

I tend to ignore completely false information coming from someone who is poorly informed.

Everything you have spouted off about in this thread is woefully incorrect and so delusional it is a waste of time to respond to.

in other words, you don't know what you're talking about, cant defend your points, so you're going to ignore arguments counter to yours, and insult me when i call you on it....FANTASTIC debating skills you have there..

pathetic...though given your pro-federal anti-state slant, it's not surprising.

reply to post by Daedalus

i agree, most kids aren't raised with proper values anymore, but i still feel the overriding problem is these damned drugs..

That often turns out to be the case. But if between birth and whenever, all a kid hears is you must do this, you may not do that and they see their parents toeing the exact same line, what the heck is there to look forward to? What kind of values are instilled?

I'm just an old fogey who grew up in the country with an inordinate amount of freedom and choices, not that I always used that freedom well or made the BEST choices, but I made 'em and I own 'em. Thing is, there is not enough money in the world to get me to trade the aches and pains and wrinkles of fogeyhood to be entering the over-regulated, over-indoctrinated world of today's youth. You'd have to drug me first.

But give a kid hope and skills and knowledge and the liberty to apply them and you'd find fewer people on anti-depressants. This is what they're missing and that's what all the hoopla over Ron Paul was about. Hope. Knowledge. Liberty. Too many of us old fogies refused to hear what the young people said they want in THEIR world. Nothing new there. Just "Sit down and shut up, we know better than you". Horse biscuits.

reply to post by Daedalus


It's hard to debate someone who thinks States don't have to recognize federal law if they don't feel like it.

Federal Law is the law of the land, this is basic common knowledge.


At anytime, you or anyone else can tell me why Mississippi has not made Abortion illegal if you truly believe that the State supersedes the Federal Government.

Until you can answer that question...there is no point talking with you.

Originally posted by seabag

The shots being fired, the first movements in a war to save our republican form of government are coming from the most unheralded of places. What is happening in Topeka, Austin, Ogden, Billings, Richmond and many other locales is just the beginning of a movement that will sweep this nation in the next four years. The people, in the form of their respective States and their State legislatures, are learning and relearning the lessons that Jefferson and Madison taught us over 200 years ago.

The lesson resides in one word: Just say "No."

Some conservatives are waiting for the next Ronald Reagan to come along and save our country from Obama. We put our faith in the Tea Party to pack congress full of like-minded Americans and we have come up short. Democrats and moderates put their hope in Obama only to get more of the same garbage we’ve seen for decades. Government continues to grow and our freedom continues to erode. There is no one person or one group that is going to fix the damage that has been done. The next American Revolution has begun and the battlefield spreads from coast to coast.

When the Democratic Governor of Montana claims that any Federal government ban on the right to bear arms will not take hold in his State or when the Republican Governor of Texas says that there are sections of the Obamacare law that will not hit the ground in his State, they are not espousing a new, radical and revolutionary theory of American self-governance. They are speaking from an over 200 year history that traces its roots back to the Founding of our great nation and codified by the pens of none other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They are the kernels of the coming restoration of America.

link


It will be the states that take this country back from the overreaching, power hungry usurpers in Washington, DC. If our representatives won’t fix this mess then WE WILL! I’m am glad to live in one of the many states that GETS IT!

In early 1835, Mexican president Santa Anna began centralizing power and operating as a dictator, much like Obama. Texas fought against tyranny and won, and we will once again stand against tyranny along with Americans from many states across this country.

As the founding fathers of the United States of America made clear in the Declaration of Independence in 1776:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government..."

WhiteHouse.gov

We can accomplish this without any bloodshed.

The first shots have been fired…It is time to reclaim our country!

edit on 31-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

While your intentions are good, i'm afraid you are wrong, in order to save the country you must understand who and what has the power and control, Republicans and Democrats are both the same thing because the ones running things are always the same, the presidents change, the global elite don't. The only way to save any country would be to simply reject everything of theirs, in V for Vendetta they show people in masks rebelling against the government but that wouldn't change a thing, you cannot change the world for the better if you become your enemy, you must do it with purity and restraint.

They live off of the people when the people turn their backs on them, they will have no more power.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by Daedalus

 

It's hard to debate someone who thinks States don't have to recognize federal law if they don't feel like it.

Federal Law is the law of the land, this is basic common knowledge.


At anytime, you or anyone else can tell me why Mississippi has not made Abortion illegal if you truly believe that the State supersedes the Federal Government.

Until you can answer that question...there is no point talking with you.

again, the abortion thing is a sidetrack...

the constitution is the supreme law of the land..

Cannabis is illegal under federal law, but several states have legalized it.

reply to post by HiddenAgenda

They live off of the people when the people turn their backs on them, they will have no more power.

You're absolutely right but doing that would require that people learn how to work together to create their own money systems and pull their kiddies out of public schools. How many people are that committed to turning their backs on the system?

What other things would they have to do?

reply to post by Daedalus

again, the abortion thing is a sidetrack...

the constitution is the supreme law of the land..

Cannabis is illegal under federal law, but several states have legalized it.

How is abortion a sidetrack but Cannabis is fair game???

And yes, the Feds can and are busting people in those states that have legalized it. All it means when the State legalizes it is that the local/State cops aren't going to bust you and the state courts aren't going to prosecute. They can't stop the Feds from enforcing the Federal law...and they haven't been.

So...since Cannabis is fair game...how about you stop trying to dodge abortion. Why hasn't Mississippi, the most Conservative State in the Nation, outlawed abortion at the State level???

Originally posted by xedocodex
And yes, the Feds can and are busting people in those states that have legalized it. All it means when the State legalizes it is that the local/State cops aren't going to bust you and the state courts aren't going to prosecute. They can't stop the Feds from enforcing the Federal law...and they haven't been.

And that's because cannabis is not a constitutionally guaranteed right...the right to keep and bear arms IS.

So...since Cannabis is fair game...how about you stop trying to dodge abortion. Why hasn't Mississippi, the most Conservative State in the Nation, outlawed abortion at the State level???

well, since you asked so "nicely"....the reason i dodge it, is because not only is it not relevant to the discussion we're having here, but the fact of the matter is i'm not knowledgeable on that specific item, and unlike you, i'm not going to touch upon a subject i know nothing about..

the cannabis example was used to demonstrate a state overriding a federal statute.

as i said before, i find it funny how hypocritical you anti-gun, anti-state, pro-fed types are....states have no rights, the federal government is almighty, but when the states exercise their rights to ban or criminalize something you don't like, well that's just dandy...woo-hoo, go state's rights...gimmie a friggin' break..

Originally posted by Daedalus
reply to post by Bluesma

 

I noticed your location is France, are you an American that moved to France, or a french citizen that came here for a visit?

I am american, born and raised. Currently living in France.

Looking at the snide remarks from some people here in response to the point of view I shared, maybe I should provide some context about the people I get this from.
It is a number of relatives (I have both liberal and conservative ones, these are more liberal). What they all have in common is being highly educated, intellectual types. I just realized they are mostly university professors, or teachers in college and high school levels, two are lawyers, a couple are in the mental health field. One works in prisons with all kinds of murderers. What they have in common is a description of experiencing a real downward trend in education in the US, and an upward trend in mental sickness. Their individual opinions on why tend to vary.
But it seems to be the common thread between them they see the mix of being uneducated, or mentally ill, that makes a big part of the population potentially irresponsible with weapons.... hence their view of necessity for gun control.

From their, it is my humble opinion that people who are percieving so much mental illness and primitive, barbarian movements around them, that they would react defensively to a revolution happening on their street.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Oh, I understand their point of view - they want to keep their cake, and eat it, too. Life doesn't work that way, but I reckon some folks have to learn the hard way.....I'll ignore the calumny about "shooting some one because of the kind of car they have".....

I'm a bit lost in some of that, "seeing no bad", "keep their cake and eat it too".....and I can only go so far in describing the opinion of another (my ability to plunge into a philosophy and view of another is pretty good, but I need to stay a little generalized to make for individual differences...)

Perhaps my example was exaggerated but you do know what I mean, don't you? Things like road rage happen! Perhaps the way certain people talk, trying to sound tough, gives the idea that they do not control their anger? I have noticed that on this site, for example, people will spurt some very hostile stuff and not even see any need to apologize, or make any effort in the future to channel their hostility into diplomatic forms. That is uncivilized behavior. I don't know. I am limited in knowing the sources of their conclusions.

Now they are supporting the government using IT'S force. Before you said that THEY wouldn't "just sit there and take it".

I think, if the people were fighting amongst each other, I think the ones that didn't want the revolt to take place would welcome the eventual intervention of the military. But also as I said, I think the government would hesitate for a while before putting martial law into effect, for many reasons.

To answer your question, yes, we can defeat the government with the "arms" we have. Resoundingly. What's even worse, and more embarrassing for them, is the fact that I have no guns at all. Weapons, yes, but nary a gun in sight. Not every weapon fires a bullet or draws blood. .

AH! So... wait, the firearms that many claim they need to keep to defend themselves against the government are actually NOT needed for that purpose?

You said that they would not "just sit there and take it". What are the implications we are supposed to draw from that, then? They'll spit at us and call us nasty names? Take away our birthdays?

To plan is to work out a scheme beforehand. My opinion is that some people would react defensively to a revolution, not that they are planning a civil war right now. I can't answer all your questions in detail because this site isn't allowing enough text... but people defend themselves with more than just guns, as you yourself pointed out.

If we "win" the gun issue, then there's really no need to take up arms either way, is there? If I'm not shooting at someone, or taking their stuff, if I'm not bothering them, what have they got to "defend" against?

This is why I ask- if you get to keep your guns, will the talk of revolution stop? Because there seems to be people who want to revolt, and not just because of this issue. I see in the next paragraph you agreed- it probably won't. In the event that the people remained armed, and there is an attempt at revolution, then both halves of the population (revolutionary and not) will be armed. They might be used if people feel the need to defend themselves. That was my guess here.

That means that your "socialized medicine" scheme (which is nothing of the sort) has got to go now, too. I'm not planning on taking arms up over it, though. I'm just refusing to comply, period. If a young war starts over that, it won't be me starting it.

Let me be precise- this discussion was NEVER PERSONAL for me. It was not about "you", nor about me. I am speaking of someone elses viewpoint, I used the word "socialized" medicine because that is what they tend to use, (I think it is a big mistake, personally) and in refering to an attempt of revolution, I never meant you starting it. I was speaking in a wider sense, of many people who are clamoring for revolution currently.
You acknowledge that more violent attitudes are growing and may be unstoppable at this point, no matter which way the wind blows on gun control... those are what I speak of. This was not about you.

Originally posted by Daedalus

i agree, most kids aren't raised with proper values anymore, but i still feel the overriding problem is these damned drugs..

I think that improper upbringing, devoid of proper values, is causing them to have an attitude that opens the door for the administration of the mind altering drugs. Little Johnny shows signs of an aggressive "hooray for me and to hell with you!" attitude, some jackass counselor prescribes Ritalin or whatever the fashionable drug is these days, and POOF! PRESTO! We have a budding young psychopath to contend with, just waiting to happen to an unsuspecting school.

Originally posted by xedocodex

At anytime, you or anyone else can tell me why Mississippi has not made Abortion illegal if you truly believe that the State supersedes the Federal Government.

Until you can answer that question...there is no point talking with you.

The Constitution does not mention abortion.

It does, SPECIFICALLY, mention the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and lays out a prohibition on the infringement thereof.

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by nenothtu

To answer your question, yes, we can defeat the government with the "arms" we have. Resoundingly. What's even worse, and more embarrassing for them, is the fact that I have no guns at all. Weapons, yes, but nary a gun in sight. Not every weapon fires a bullet or draws blood. .

AH! So... wait, the firearms that many claim they need to keep to defend themselves against the government are actually NOT needed for that purpose?

That's not what I said. I said a) I do not have any guns, and b)not all weapons fire a bullet or draw blood. Both are true, but neither equates to firearms being unnecessary as defensive tools. I also do not drive nor have a car, but that doesn't mean I think no one else should, or that they are useless.

To plan is to work out a scheme beforehand. My opinion is that some people would react defensively to a revolution, not that they are planning a civil war right now. I can't answer all your questions in detail because this site isn't allowing enough text... but people defend themselves with more than just guns, as you yourself pointed out.

Simple question: are these people who are "not planning" a civil war armed right now, or are they not?

That means that your "socialized medicine" scheme (which is nothing of the sort) has got to go now, too. I'm not planning on taking arms up over it, though. I'm just refusing to comply, period. If a young war starts over that, it won't be me starting it.

Let me be precise- this discussion was NEVER PERSONAL for me. It was not about "you", nor about me. I am speaking of someone elses viewpoint, I used the word "socialized" medicine because that is what they tend to use, (I think it is a big mistake, personally) and in refering to an attempt of revolution, I never meant you starting it. I was speaking in a wider sense, of many people who are clamoring for revolution currently.

You're right, and I apologize for that poor choice of words. It's obviously not "yours" - you didn't pass it, and I'm not really sure what you think about it beyond it being a "big mistake", nor is it really the subject here. I stand corrected.

You acknowledge that more violent attitudes are growing and may be unstoppable at this point, no matter which way the wind blows on gun control... those are what I speak of. This was not about you.

Yes, I think we are at a tipping point currently, if not already past it. There is not much to reel it in with now. The firearms issues are but the latest in "a long chain of abuses and usurpations", and it's likely that the genie cannot be put back into the bottle now. It's just the issue that's going to push things over the edge, because it's far more clearly wrong than many of the others. That doesn't mean they were NOT wrong, it just means this issue is clearer to people.

As an example, many of us know that the health care debacle is "wrong", but the opposition can make an argument, however convoluted, that it's somehow "constitutional". The same goes for the Patriot Act, "National Security Letters", and a plethora of other recent abuses of power. In the case of arms, they can't make the same sort of argument because the Constitution is very clear on the matter, so it stands much clearer and in a much sharper relief.

Now here is why it's a problem, and why just leaving the guns alone at this point won't settle it down. Because the gun issue is so much clearer, it has served to shed light on the intentions that all of the other abuses are leading up to. People are seeing how the chain of events build up one upon the other, how each lays the foundation for the next in an ever tightening noose, and from that they can project where the events are leading to, whose neck the noose is tightening on. They're not going to just let the guns issue settle the entire thing now, because they can see the rest much better, and they don't like what they are seeing.