29% Think Armed Revolution Needed

[Guest ThePunisher]

I pray that the people of this country will never be like the citizenry of England, Canada, and Australia, and turn in their guns to the government lest we become victims like those of Mao's China, Lenin and Stalin's Russia, and Hitler's Germany.

Robert Heinlein said "an armed society is a polite society", and JFK said "we dare not forget we are heirs of the first revolution". We must never surrender our guns, and we must never be scared of the government. Lest we forget, we the people are the government, and if the government is corrupt, then we must take back our government and bring about justice. The representatives work for us, and we do not bow down to them contrary to these politicians beliefs that we have to.

Remember that in 1994 there was a Republican Revolution that gained control of Congress for first time in over 40 years. Revolution should not be a dirty word in our minds when it comes to saving our country from these communist who want to enslave us. We need to unite for the sole purpose of keeping our liberty and freedoms. And that is why 2014 and 2016 is so important at the polls. We cannot let apathy take control of us or we will lose our country to these commies. We've still got a chance to take back our country, but we have to unite behind the cause of liberty and freedom. The thought of losing our liberties and freedoms seems to me to be an impetus for uniting behind someone that will stand up for our liberty and freedoms in the 2014 and 2016 elections. Let's not lose hope.

[RobertNashville]

I don't believe anyone here is ready to turn in their guns; I just think some of use believe that an armed rebellion (which is the issue started this thread) is a viable option.

 

There is a very significant difference between being afraid to fight and a conscious decision that fighting is not the answer.

 

I have to admit; I have all but given up...a lot of that is the bitter disappointment in my fellow citizens who kept such a truly horrible, American-hating socialist in office for another four years.  That's a lot to swallow. I'll still vote...I'll still work...but I'm not optimistic about the outcomes in 2014 or 2016.

[JohnC]

I don't believe anyone here is ready to turn in their guns; I just think some of use believe that an armed rebellion (which is the issue started this thread) is a viable option.

 

There is a very significant difference between being afraid to fight and a conscious decision that fighting is not the answer.

 

I have to admit; I have all but given up...a lot of that is the bitter disappointment in my fellow citizens who kept such a truly horrible, American-hating socialist in office for another four years.  That's a lot to swallow. I'll still vote...I'll still work...but I'm not optimistic about the outcomes in 2014 or 2016.

 

 

The time to fight armed would be when there was absolutely nothing left and no other choice but to fight to save your life and liberty.

 

That scenario would be when folks have no voice (no freedom of speech), no voting rights (dictatorship), and getting jailed or killed just for opposing a political party.

 

Again, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, etc.

 

But we are far far from that at this point. We still have time to fix this mess. :up:

 

Again, start at the bottom with education. It is the best and fastest route to winning.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The time to fight armed would be when there was absolutely nothing left and no other choice but to fight to save your life and liberty.

 

That scenario would be when folks have no voice (no freedom of speech), no voting rights (dictatorship), and getting jailed or killed just for opposing a political party.

 

Again, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, etc.

 

But we are far far from that at this point. We still have time to fix this mess. :up:

 

Again, start at the bottom with education. It is the best and fastest route to winning.

 

We may have time to fix the political mess but I am very afraid the economic mess cannot be fixed, at least not without MAJOR hardships by everyone. I see any fighting being over resources, either those supplied by the government or those belonging to those who worked for them. We are already fighting over resources. We are fighting to try to keep enough of our income to live comfortably while the other side is fighting to take as much of our income to do the same. Imagine when it is no longer about being comfortable and is about staying alive.

[wtl]

Very different. I can promise you that if such a day comes I won't hesitate to pick up a rifle, but it won't be to overthrow a freely elected government; it will be to put folks like you in the ground.

 

I imagine everyone has in mind a "line" that when crossed will demand a response that cannot be made at the polls. I doubt that anyone involved in this thread believes we are further from that line than we were in 2008 (or that we were further in 2008 than in 1988). What I hear you saying is that you're willing to kill fellow patriots and Tennesseans whose "line" is in front of yours. This to me is the nuttiest post in this entire thread. Seeing this just days after visiting and signing up makes me wonder if I even want to be here.

 

I think if you truly love our constitution you should be looking for common ground with others of like mind, not promising to put them in the ground.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm an old hippy peacenik, and a coward as well. Shooting is a last-resort kinda thang. When there is no other acceptable course of action.

 

I just like to think about events, dynamics, "alternate histories", "what ifs".

 

Dunno if this is true, but have read that China rather routinely has peasant uprisings that would be a BFD if something so big occurred in the USA. They don't "win" but apparently, afterward, local fearless leaders get substituted with new less noxious local fearless leaders and conditions are at least slightly modified afterwards to lessen the odds of uprisings. So in certain ways such futile uprisings have an effect.

 

USA had a few "pretty BFD" local rebellions in the years after the revolution, which didn't turn out so well in direct results for the rebels, but they may have established "boundary conditions" of how despotic that state and city policies back then could become without inviting a bunch of trouble. The rebellions were not "just for the heck of it" and had valid grievances.

 

Consider Waco and Ruby Ridge. The government got black eyes and very bad PR from those examples of modern tyranny. If the victims in those massacres had just quietly rolled over, and the government hadn't got such bad public relations from the events, then the authorities would have just kept rolling over "oddball fringe groups". It would have become real common not even worthy of news coverage. The resisting victims absolutely and without question got clobbered, but the resistance most likely slowed down high-handed government tactics against oddball fringe groups, so they MAY have had a beneficial effect, though certainly not beneficial to the victims. Might have "nipped in the bud" certain tendencies at the time. Worked the other way around as well, making other oddball fringe groups a bit more circumspect in their behavior.

 

Am just thinking that civil wars or citizens making armed invasion of Washington, are not the only kind of armed resistance. Of course political action and civil disobedience would be the better resistance whenever possible. But to quote animal house, "I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!" Occasional idiots with their backs to the wall, might be "overall beneficial" in the long run. Not that I'm volunteering. :)

 

It also seems that certain events wouldn't go down the same way the second time around. A common example-- It is vanishingly unlikely that terrorists with box cutters could fly another jet into the pentagon. The common men and women, passengers on the planes would short-circuit a successful attack.

 

Maybe my imagination is defective, but I imagine if there were another standoff similar to Waco, dragging on for days and weeks, that many thousands of protestors, in support of the victims, would make the FBI's job MUCH more difficult. Both freedom-loving civil disobedience folks and armed hot heads of questionable sanity and judgement. But it wouldn't be another Waco. It would be a zoo and a bad cluster flock, but it would be a MUCH bigger BFD before it was all over, with vast political liabilities for the people in charge, in the aftermath. The kind of troubles that could bring down administrations. Which would make subsequent administrations more circumspect in their actions. The politicos don't want trouble either, they just want to peacefully bully people, benefit their buddies, and get rich off their offices.

Edited May 6, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[JayC]

No, no, no!  This is absolutely the wrong attitude to have, wait until you live in a total dictatorship to try and overthrow the government?  Now that is just crazy talk.

 

By this standard, our founding fathers should have waited for things to get a lot worse before taking up arms against King George.  Our government is almost to the same position as the british crown was in the 1770's.

 

 Men (and women) are either free creatures with God given inalienable rights or not, there is no middle ground on that question.  If they're free they should be able to choose how to live their life, as long as they don't use force against other free individuals in society.  

 

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty"

 

 

 

The time to fight armed would be when there was absolutely nothing left and no other choice but to fight to save your life and liberty.

 

That scenario would be when folks have no voice (no freedom of speech), no voting rights (dictatorship), and getting jailed or killed just for opposing a political party.

 

Again, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, etc.

 

But we are far far from that at this point. We still have time to fix this mess. :up:

 

Again, start at the bottom with education. It is the best and fastest route to winning.

 

[TMF]

I imagine everyone has in mind a "line" that when crossed will demand a response that cannot be made at the polls. I doubt that anyone involved in this thread believes we are further from that line than we were in 2008 (or that we were further in 2008 than in 1988). What I hear you saying is that you're willing to kill fellow patriots and Tennesseans whose "line" is in front of yours. This to me is the nuttiest post in this entire thread. Seeing this just days after visiting and signing up makes me wonder if I even want to be here.

I think if you truly love our constitution you should be looking for common ground with others of like mind, not promising to put them in the ground.

Sorry, anyone who attempts to overthrow a freely elected government is an enemy to the Constitution and their fellow Americans. No different than any other enemy we have faced. If the time came I would fell compelled to put a uniform back on and fight such an enemy. Then again, I've put my money where my mouth is in the past. Can't say the same for all the folks who think they're gonna be ambushing federal law enforcement ala Wolverines.

If we want to get into what is unconstitutional and what warrants an armed response from the citizenry how about some folks here take a look back through history and study up on all the unconstitutional laws passed which did not result in revolution. Off the top of my head I figure one of the first was the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by one of the framers of the Constitution. Since then there has been so much unconstitutional legislation we would be here all day listing it. But now that Obama is in office doing the same thing we should suddenly abandon the electoral process and take up arms? That is the most ludicrous things I've heard. What makes him any different than so many that came before him? We have a SCOTUS. We have Congress. We have our fellow Americans who elected their President and representatives. When that changes I'll be burning tanks before anyone here on this site beating their chests are. Until then anyone taking up arms in an offensive manner against the government is a terrorist.

[wtl]

I see. So your position is that as long as the three branches of government and some semblance of elections exist, you're happy.

[macville]

Sorry, anyone who attempts to overthrow a freely elected government is an enemy to the Constitution and their fellow Americans. No different than any other enemy we have faced. If the time came I would fell compelled to put a uniform back on and fight such an enemy. Then again, I've put my money where my mouth is in the past. Can't say the same for all the folks who think they're gonna be ambushing federal law enforcement ala Wolverines.

If we want to get into what is unconstitutional and what warrants an armed response from the citizenry how about some folks here take a look back through history and study up on all the unconstitutional laws passed which did not result in revolution. Off the top of my head I figure one of the first was the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by one of the framers of the Constitution. Since then there has been so much unconstitutional legislation we would be here all day listing it. But now that Obama is in office doing the same thing we should suddenly abandon the electoral process and take up arms? That is the most ludicrous things I've heard. What makes him any different than so many that came before him? We have a SCOTUS. We have Congress. We have our fellow Americans who elected their President and representatives. When that changes I'll be burning tanks before anyone here on this site beating their chests are. Until then anyone taking up arms in an offensive manner against the government is a terrorist.

 

They may have been elected Constitutionally but how many of them follow the Constitution they swore to uphold? At what point do you realize that you are the only one follow the Consitution. Would it not be Constitutional to actually RESTORE the Constitution by enforcing it?

[JayC]

So as long as 50%+1 of the population supports what the government is doing, we should just suck it up and take it?  No matter what? 

 

I can't imagine that is really what you meant to say. 

 

98% of soviet citizens voted for the communist party, does that mean they had no right to overthrow their government?  Hitler's party  received 99% of the vote in 1938.  By your stated logic it would have been 'wrong' to try and overthrow either of those governments?

 

Sorry, anyone who attempts to overthrow a freely elected government is an enemy to the Constitution and their fellow Americans. No different than any other enemy we have faced. If the time came I would fell compelled to put a uniform back on and fight such an enemy. Then again, I've put my money where my mouth is in the past. Can't say the same for all the folks who think they're gonna be ambushing federal law enforcement ala Wolverines.

If we want to get into what is unconstitutional and what warrants an armed response from the citizenry how about some folks here take a look back through history and study up on all the unconstitutional laws passed which did not result in revolution. Off the top of my head I figure one of the first was the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by one of the framers of the Constitution. Since then there has been so much unconstitutional legislation we would be here all day listing it. But now that Obama is in office doing the same thing we should suddenly abandon the electoral process and take up arms? That is the most ludicrous things I've heard. What makes him any different than so many that came before him? We have a SCOTUS. We have Congress. We have our fellow Americans who elected their President and representatives. When that changes I'll be burning tanks before anyone here on this site beating their chests are. Until then anyone taking up arms in an offensive manner against the government is a terrorist.

 

[Guest ThePunisher]

I think Reagan said that " Freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction ". Time is short in saving our country. We can't give up now, but the light at the end of the tunnel is getting dimmer. We all have to realize that we can take back our country if we just become united for the cause of liberty and freedom.

[Chucktshoes]

TMF, do you understand the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic?

When a government, no matter how "freely elected" ceases to protect the God given liberties of the individual, it ceases to be a legitimate government.

Besides, who's talking about ambushing police? They are just the poor saps tasked with the dangerous task of enforcing bad laws and most are not enemies of liberty. It is much more effective to go after those who write the bad laws. Show them that they aren't safe from the consequences of their actions. Take out a few elected officials with a history of working against liberty and make sure to award their media lapdogs the Julius Streicher award for journalistic integrity. That ought to get their attention.

[TMF]

I see. So your position is that as long as the three branches of government and some semblance of elections exist, you're happy.

Happy? That is a pretty strong word. I doubt you'd find many people outside DC who would use the term "happy" to describe their feelings toward our government, but I'm certain that has been a common trend with our country and every other country throughout the history of mankind.

Perhaps you meant something more subdued like "content" or "satisfied". I am neither. But that is true for every election in our history. There is always going to be a significant percentage of Americans who are unhappy with who won an election. Does that give them cause to take up arms and fight the government. You think liberals were happy when Reagan won? Would they have been justified in armed revolt? Keep in mind the unconstitutional legislation that passed when he was in office.

Still, no one has explained why this president is any different than the rest in regard to overstepping the Constitution. William Henry Harrison is probably the only president that didn't and that's only because he didnt get a chance. Suddenly we should take up arms because we just don't like this one the most? Well perhaps we should look back in disgust at every generation before ours that didn't decide to overthrow their elected leadership, huh? I'm sure America would be a fine place now I'd they did.

For so many who are quick to berate me as a complicit comrade, I ask why you are on this site rather than out digging fighting positions on the national mall?

[TMF]

TMF, do you understand the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic?

When a government, no matter how "freely elected" ceases to protect the God given liberties of the individual, it ceases to be a legitimate government.

Besides, who's talking about ambushing police? They are just the poor saps tasked with the dangerous task of enforcing bad laws and most are not enemies of liberty. It is much more effective to go after those who write the bad laws. Show them that they aren't safe from the consequences of their actions. Take out a few elected officials with a history of working against liberty and make sure to award their media lapdogs the Julius Streicher award for journalistic integrity. That ought to get their attention.

I realize the difference and understand that our elected leaders have a greater duty to uphold the Constitution rather than placate the people. The problem is that politicians are, and always will be, corrupt. Now that folks are voting themselves into prosperity more than ever before we are in quite a pickle. I really don't know the best way to reconcile that, but taking up arms will not improve the situation one bit.

I also will never recognize a government that took its seat of power by force rather than the voice of the people.

The problem lies with socialist idealism that has permeated our culture. We can't defeat that with bullets. In fact, armed revolt will likely have the exact opposite effect. We must educate the next generation on the principles of liberty and why they are so important. We should challenge unconstitutional leadership at the polls and in the courtroom. We should challenge unconstitutional laws with civil disobedience. Violence will not solve this problem, I can promise you that.

[wtl]

Why are you so anxious to see folks take up arms right this minute? Are you itching for a chance to put some in the ground (your own words)? This thread is about a news story where a percentage of people surveyed said armed revolution *might be* necessary at some unspecified future time. All of this discussion is hypothetical, and I don't recall anyone in this discussion suggesting the time is now. Your hyperbole is completely unnecessary.

 

Answer, if you will, a simple question. Is there any action an elected U.S. government can take that would justify an armed revolt? (Regardless of how futile it might be?)

[Guest Darth Maul]

 
Answer, if you will, a simple question. Is there any action an elected U.S. government can take that would justify an armed revolt? (Regardless of how futile it might be?)

My answer would be martial law that would suspend the Constitution, door to door gun confiscation along with a few others. But those are the two things that stand out in my mind and they are also two things that I believe are right around the corner.

[wtl]

My answer would be martial law that would suspend the Constitution, door to door gun confiscation along with a few others. But those are the two things that stand out in my mind and they are also two things that I believe are right around the corner.

 

That's reasonable. I was specifically looking for TMF to respond, because based on his statements you might expect him to be okay with the above and hope to reverse it in the voting booth (though in your scenario I'm not so sure you could even count on future elections behind held.)

 

In fact, based on what he has posted so far, if guns are outlawed tomorrow and a grace period for voluntary turn in starts, he'd be first in line since a duly elected government passed the law, despite it's unconstitutionality.

 

One can certainly argue unconstitutional laws throughout our history, but what has changed now is you have nearly, (if not already more than), 50% of the populace receiving government benefits, enabled by decades of ever-worsening public education that has gotten so bad now it's more important to promote and celebrate perversion than it is to teach constitutional history.

 

Who can look at the lingering questions about O's eligibility, Benghazi, the Gosnell trial and many other present evils, and not think that we are quickly approaching a tipping point from which we cannot return?

 

I certainly hope we can turn it around in 2014/2016, but we can't even rely on the only supposedly conservative party that is viable to field conservative, electable candidates.

Edited May 6, 2013 by wtl

[TMF]

Answer, if you will, a simple question. Is there any action an elected U.S. government can take that would justify an armed revolt? (Regardless of how futile it might be?)

Of course there is. Hypothetically Obama could declare himself supreme leader tomorrow, have the SCOTUS tossed in Gitmo, shut down Congress and declare martial law. If that happens I'll be snapping necks and cashing checks. In the meantime, so much of the rhetoric I've seen in regard to armed revolt refers to recent unconstitutional acts or supposed acts by this administration. My comments regarding folks taking on the government now are for those people. I find it ironic having someone preach from behind a keyboard as to how we are sackless sheeple for not taking up arms as the very accuser reaches his portly fingers over for another funyun. I don't buy it.

Right now this administration has done nothing worse than many before it. Does that make it okay? No. Does that mean we revolt? No.

[Chucktshoes]

Right now this administration has done nothing worse than many before it. Does that make it okay? No. Does that mean we revolt? No.

Maybe the question isn't why should we shoot the folks now in Washington when they aren't any worse than the communists in Washington during the 30s, for example. Maybe the question is why didn't our great grandfathers shoot Roosevelt when he was busy destroying the country? Edited May 6, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[wtl]

Got it TMF. As long as the three branches of government remain, they can do anything they want to the citizenry and you're good. I thought that was it--just wanted confirmation.

 

I'll bow out of the discussion at this point--got a sudden hunger for funyuns for some reason.

Edited May 6, 2013 by wtl

[JohnC]

So as long as 50%+1 of the population supports what the government is doing, we should just suck it up and take it?  No matter what? 

 

I can't imagine that is really what you meant to say. 

 

98% of soviet citizens voted for the communist party, does that mean they had no right to overthrow their government?  Hitler's party  received 99% of the vote in 1938.  By your stated logic it would have been 'wrong' to try and overthrow either of those governments?

 

No one said that. It's not about measuring things by the asleep sheeple voting for a bad president. Hell, that's all been done before. One of them in my lifetime that comes to mind is, Carter. Do you think revolution at that time would have worked better than Reagan?

 

We're not that far gone. This isn't Soviet Russia.

 

Go back and read my posts again.

 

A fight too early would be a very bad idea. Right now, not everyone agrees with you. Your support would be small. Your government would label your small resistance a pack of right-wing terrorists and you'd be killed quickly and easily by those who still hold their oath to protect the citizens, the USA in general and the constitution. Fighting now or before any real tyranny, you'd be the equivalent of the Boston Bombers in the eye of peaceful Americans and LE for trying to attack our government and politicians. You'd be hunted down and killed. You'd probably not even make it 2-3 days before your slaughter even if you were very well trained.

 

But if it becomes a dictatorship with no constitutional rights, folks being jailed or killed by Govt just for their political beliefs, etc., (Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, etc.,) then you will have reason to fight and all the support you'd ever need. Plus, most of those Americans in LE, Military, SWAT, FBI, CIA, etc., would probably take your side as they're all Americans like us and would want their freedom and liberties restored.

 

When freedom and liberty can be restored peacefully, it should be done peacefully.

 

If your government is violent and jailing or killing citizens wrongfully for their political and religious beliefs, no constitutional protections, etc., then you can have your fight.

 

Make sense?

Edited May 6, 2013 by JohnC

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe the question isn't why should we shoot the folks now in Washington when they aren't any worse than the communists in Washington during the 30s, for example. Maybe the question is why didn't our great grandfathers shoot Roosevelt when he was busy destroying the country?

Probably for the same reasons as now.

[DaveTN]

Besides a lot of emotion there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of who said what. There are some people that are implying they will take up arms against Americans; yet when called on it they back pedal and say that isn’t what they said.

Others are being blamed for saying they want to start shooting when that isn’t what they said at all. They said they (and I think most American Patriots) will not stand by and watch our government (no matter how bad it is) be taken over by force and will recognize no group that tries to do so.

I understand this is just discussion because my feelings are any group, no matter how big, that thinks they can go toe to toe with the U.S. Military and local Law Enforcement is delusional anyway. We all understand you are pizzed off at Obama and his crew; so are we. But we will not allow anyone to destroy our country because they think Obama may destroy it.

Obama is in his last term…. Period. He can’t appoint himself anything and he can’t do away with term limits.

We live in a two party country. That is a fact. Get on one side or the other Republican or Democrat and get the next person ready to be elected. If you are a Democrat, you need do nothing; you folks are united. If you oppose the Democratic Party and what they stand for you better help find a Republican that you can get behind and knock off all this third party non-sense. If you don’t it will be Clinton, Biden Cuomo, or whatever other anti-gun jerk they can come up with. Then we will more than likely deal with 8 years of that.

But threaten people with guns won’t get you anywhere but dead or in prison.

[RichardR]

Creeping incrementalism keeps the frog from jumping out of the pot before it is too late.

Welcome to Amerika 2.0, the time for the frog to have jumped has long since passed.