Why are Americans deluded into thinking they could win a civil war?

reply to post by sajuek


If there were to be a violent revolution in this country, which is not something I'd like to see happen, who do you think is going to be fighting that war for the Government? Do you honestly believe that the majority of the military would fire on it's own citizens? Deluded? Let's be realistic, the US Government is buying all the ammo because they can't take the guns. Drones or not, if this would ever happen, the military and police would side with the people.

"When Government fears it's people you have liberty, when the people fear their Government you have tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson.

reply to post by Leuan


I never implied killing in the name of your country, or for any reason (except hunting, that is fun) is fun, it just needs to be done somtimes, it is a job, like being a police officer and having to shoot a suspect to save yours or anothers life. I doubt any but the sickest would enjoy it.

reply to post by inverslyproportional

Never mind...you proved my point...

Originally posted by dagann
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

Never mind...you proved my point...

If your point was I will kill in defense of myself and my rights, but would not enjoy it, and j n fact carry the shame and regret of it the rest of my life, then yes I guess I did.

I never understand why so many people want to talk about civil war, or uprising, etc...

NEVER will happen and if it does it is over in a few HOURS.

reply to post by maxhobbs


You have no clue about what could happen.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


This is where it gets tricky. Here's the 1A:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law. Have they made a federal law that prohibits free speech? With the exception to the alteration of the bill involving secret service and protest, they have not. All the tear gas, batons, rubber bullets, LRADs and more do not equate to a law being made by Congress against free speech. Did Congress even do anything or were they behind the activities against protesters? I was watching that stuff intensely because I admire the Constitution. What I noted occurring was that cities' were being raided concurrently with each other. It was pretty obvious. I'd find 5-6 cities Occupy protesters being raided in the middle of the night all at the same time and there was some obvious national coordination implied by that. www.nbcnews.com... The conference call was believed to have been hosted by DHS. That's the closest you get to Congress but DHS, technically, is the agency with the least amount of oversight.

Choose your flavor of spin:
www.foxnews.com...
washingtonexaminer.com...

So who did what? It wasn't Congress that ordered batons being brought out--that was all local governments and police departments possibly in collusion with DHS--against executive orders.

2A:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Has Congress passed anything recently that has impacted 2A. Citing NYC, LA, and Chicago as areas where 2A may have been impacted is absolutely correct. However, the question is who passed it:

The measure passed the state Assembly 104-43 after passing the state Senate 43-18 Monday. Gov. Andrew Cuomo quickly signed the legislation on Tuesday.

source: usnews.nbcnews.com...

The state assembly passed it. State...local government again, not federal.

It's not to say that Congress hasn't behaved in a vile or repugnant manner. They have. They have proven themselves to be useless, incapable of working together, and much much more. They have also shown (NDAA with the indefinite detention, PIPA/SOPA and etc) that when they do start agreeing, it may mean bad news. If something should pass through Congress that impacts 1A or 2A, then one has just cause to be angry at them for impacting those amendments. As of right now, blame the local governments for doing that. And quite probably the ill controlled DHS.

"There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."— Mahatma Gandhi

"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves." — Winston Churchill

Freedom would be the objective; freedom from criminals who believe they are above the law.
There are no "winners" in war.

reply to post by sajuek


Because most of the military would deflect n join thee rebellion. Government will break down very fast. U seen what one man like James donor did in California. He create mass panic n the media was going insane. A few million people like him would turn the America upside down.

reply to post by WhiteAlice

Congress shall make no law. Have they made a federal law that prohibits free speech? With the exception to the alteration of the bill involving secret service and protest, they have not.

Just because congress does not make a law does not give them the right to oppress those things. The Constitution governs them and in order for them to do anything it must be authorized as a delegated authority in the constitution or they are strictly prohibited from doing it. The is the maxim of law the Constitution is predicated on. But of course congress pretty much ignores that along with the executive now days and now we have several generations growing up who are ignorant and uneducated of their history who think that is the way it should be. The government has no authority to violate rights period as per the bill of rights and the 10th amendment and all the state constitutions... Read your constitution and the federalist papers and defend your rights!

Originally posted by maxhobbs
I never understand why so many people want to talk about civil war, or uprising, etc...

NEVER will happen and if it does it is over in a few HOURS.

Really? What bubble do you live in? I just attended a get together with over 200 people who would strongly disagree with you. And again to all, it would be a "REVOLUTION" not a civil war....

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Congress shall make no law. Have they made a federal law that prohibits free speech? With the exception to the alteration of the bill involving secret service and protest, they have not.

Just because congress does not make a law does not give them the right to oppress those things. The Constitution governs them and in order for them to do anything it must be authorized as a delegated authority in the constitution or they are strictly prohibited from doing it. The is the maxim of law the Constitution is predicated on. But of course congress pretty much ignores that along with the executive now days and now we have several generations growing up who are ignorant and uneducated of their history who think that is the way it should be. The government has no authority to violate rights period as per the bill of rights and the 10th amendment and all the state constitutions... Read your constitution and the federalist papers and defend your rights!

edit on 3-3-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

I have actually and let me tell you, Madison wouldn't have been on the side of protesters as, I believe it's in Federalist #51, where he writes that the minority that would most likely be targeted by faction of the masses would be the wealthy landowner. Our country has had a very long history of violently subduing protesters. Civil rights movement, they were using water hoses. People died at Kent State at the hands of the National Guard during an anti-war protest. Coxey's Army, a protest comprised of hungry and jobless workers, was arrested for walking on the grass in Washington DC. Tompkins Square, 1874, police beat protesters, including women and children. And of course, in Ludlow, Colorado, 19 people died (including 11 children) while protesting for safer working conditions and wages. Those are just a few of instances where the 1A seemed to hold little more than value than a saying on a bookmark to our governments over the last 149 years.

Originally posted by WhiteAlice

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

Congress shall make no law. Have they made a federal law that prohibits free speech? With the exception to the alteration of the bill involving secret service and protest, they have not.

Just because congress does not make a law does not give them the right to oppress those things. The Constitution governs them and in order for them to do anything it must be authorized as a delegated authority in the constitution or they are strictly prohibited from doing it. The is the maxim of law the Constitution is predicated on. But of course congress pretty much ignores that along with the executive now days and now we have several generations growing up who are ignorant and uneducated of their history who think that is the way it should be. The government has no authority to violate rights period as per the bill of rights and the 10th amendment and all the state constitutions... Read your constitution and the federalist papers and defend your rights!

edit on 3-3-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

I have actually and let me tell you, Madison wouldn't have been on the side of protesters as, I believe it's in Federalist #51, where he writes that the minority that would most likely be targeted by faction of the masses would be the wealthy landowner. Our country has had a very long history of violently subduing protesters. Civil rights movement, they were using water hoses. People died at Kent State at the hands of the National Guard during an anti-war protest. Coxey's Army, a protest comprised of hungry and jobless workers, was arrested for walking on the grass in Washington DC. Tompkins Square, 1874, police beat protesters, including women and children. And of course, in Ludlow, Colorado, 19 people died (including 11 children) while protesting for safer working conditions and wages. Those are just a few of instances where the 1A seemed to hold little more than value than a saying on a bookmark to our governments over the last 149 years.

Well you need to read 51 again then because first of all it is Madison or Hamilton... And it says nothing about wealthy land owners being targeted by the masses. It is about the subdivisions of government from the federal to the local being necessary to protecting the minority or the weaker from tyranny of the majority or stronger.

i am not sure what protesters you are talking about however the fact the government has and does violate rights and laws does not change those rights and laws. They are standards to be lived up to unfortunately that isn't always the case. it is up to the people to hold government accountable. The level of tyranny we endure is directly proportionate to our lack of holding them accountable.

As the subdivisions of government meant to check each other and protect all factions especially the weaker from the more powerful have incrementally been abandoned for the pernicious concept of of centralized power and hence we have gradually experienced more and more tyranny by government because of it. This seems to be the nature of government period to gather power unto itself as is evidenced right from the get go with incidents like the Whiskey Rebellion etc. That does not mean we should not hold up the standard of natural rights and those illustrated in the constitution and demand government and those who thirst for power live by it and enforce it if necessary.

reply to post by Bacardi


i believe a small section of the military will side with the government and they'll get help from the UN to bring down the "rebels" using the tech that was bought with "our" *your* taxes


that's why they keep bringing foreign troops into US soil to "train" in an urban setting.

but what do i know, i'm just a dirty mexican

reply to post by ss830


Cool, UN troops are speed bumps and tech needs support.I'd side with a dirty mexican who is an American if he can handle a Klingon like me. I can be a handful but you'll love me if they shoot us.
Just don't invite me to dinner with mom,I might scare the poor dear.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


This nation welcomed us and we'll not betray that, my brothers are with me on this.
I've made sure to teach them what i can regarding loyalty to our country. *most of us were born in the US, so it's our home*

we'll stand to the last man.

also, we are a Klingon friendly family since the summer of 97'.

what happened in the UK with the Irish Troubles is a better example.

>carbomb kills/injures several innocent bystandards who were walking down the street at the time.

>soldiers getting trigger happy/nervous at demonstrators.

>partisan fighting between insurgants, counter-insurgants, and the government.
>ETC.

>overall we see certain checkpoints set up in parts of the country, even tougher gun laws, etc.

keep in mind, as long as the government grants the majority a comfortable, relatively safe existance, people will comply.
comfortable as in, electricity, food, housing, access to medical care (I hope this tyranical gov't has a single-payer system.. would be nice to have).

reply to post by NonsensicalUserName


Comparing the US populace to the IRA is a joke.
www.bob-owens.com...

Nations historically have feared our citizens and should.
What ever BS the progs throw out there,it sure as hell doesn't alter the numbers,opinions or our oaths. Some think I should be shamed because of my nature,I believe they will eventually figure it out or go full "Hillary" and support gun control.

What I don't understand, and really blows me away, is that you point out the futility of a civil war... Then say "Go out and vote!". The fact that no amount of voting is going to change things is why some people get into the whole revolution state of mind. We cannot change anything by voting, you've got two choices and both are basically same thing different name. Nothing makes me more upset than when people say "VOTE@!" as if that's going to solve ANYTHING at all. Telling people to vote just proves that you have no clue as to what voting really is. A farce.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Have you ever considered, even for a moment, you might not be as numorous or as strong as you think you are when SHTF?

Have you ever considered that though your belief in self-reliance and liberty is strong now, you may just get tired after years of this (assuming you aren't arrested or killed).

That blog you linked too seemed to be a bit over-the-top, its as if somebody read too many of Frank Miller's comics or something. it's like someone jerking off to how much of a "real Patriot" they are, nearly as bad as listening to some well-to-do progressive philanthropist jerk off on stage about how awesome he and his wealthy friends are..

In the end this is all just fantasy though, something to comfort us from the reality that the majority our lives will be boring and uneventful.