when is it time for an armed revolution? (welfare, Liberalism, conservative)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I could only speculate how something would go about, but a serious action would not be people running through the streets shooting people. Likely, if something like this were to ever occur, it would be in the form of stages that elevate only as needed to assist in the preservation of the intent. The intent of a revolution of such nature would be to protect and uphold the constitution.
So, the first steps would be to apply such by using the tools of civil dispute. An example is the states filing suit against the government, another example would the be the states holding a constitutional convention to amend and clarify the powers of the government in concern to its vague use and interpretation to implement its powers currently.
if such attempts are thwarted using unconstitutional means and there are no avenues of civil discourse concerning such a direction, the result may then be of individual states or within like association a move to succession.
There could be many directions such actions could take in trying to peacefully detach from the violations made. For if the Constitution is ignored, then the states have no reason to stay united and the government has no authority to dictate terms.
The result is likely factions organizing a defense to which would encompass all levels of society and even including many within the government as there are many in all walks of our society who take the oath to protect the constitution seriously and do not pander to political bias to promote their cause. To some, this one area is off limits regardless to which party they may lean.
Regardless of the approach, my hopes would be that if this were ever to occur, that it would be done so strictly in a defensive fashion. By doing so, the oppressors are identified. So only those who insist on conformity to such a violation of oath are responsible for their own actions and no mistake can be made as to who the aggressor truly is.
By this, only those who insist on such would be at risk for it would be at this point that the people, in defense of their liberty, take action to stop the aggressors.
If that meant that you or I were to join such a cause of aggression, then we would be fully responsible for our actions. The same would be for those who would take up a defense.
Unless it were some unruly cause of chaos (which would likely lose its momentum due to lack of support regardless of side), it is unlikely that the result would be random conflicts of violence with indiscretion of the people, nor do I believe it would be targeted to the innocents who do not participate or hold opinions without action.
Due to the nature of our country, to the purpose it stands, and to the respect it declares to each individual, one could not honestly hold a position of defense of liberty if it were to through disregard violate such through indiscriminate or unjustified actions.
No, personally I think if this were ever to happen, people will know exactly where they stand and will have to actively take part be it the aggressor or the defender to place ones self in such a position to be of target by the other.
They'll know where they stand but sheeple don't become warriors overnight. This will never happen because, using a somewhat understanding of history on my part tells me a successful outcome will also depend on swaying the armed forces (military), because without the direct or indirect aid of those with experience, training, and specific skills in the art of warfare, including organization, command and control, who are willing to take bullets for such abstract objectives as 'taking a hill' or 'securing a bridge, as well as being ready, willing and able to dish it out, in massive quantities or guerrilla type or special operations type warfare, NO civil unrest can be sustained.
Isn't part of the problem that it is NOT clear who is defending the constitution and how is violating it? It is also a matter of interpretation. If it were so clear, those offending it would already have been put to trial.
Nor is the constitution sacred or anything, maybe it should be updated from time to time.
They'll know where they stand but sheeple don't become warriors overnight. This will never happen because, using a somewhat understanding of history on my part tells me a successful outcome will also depend on swaying the armed forces (military), because without the direct or indirect aid of those with experience, training, and specific skills in the art of warfare, including organization, command and control, who are willing to take bullets for such abstract objectives as 'taking a hill' or 'securing a bridge, as well as being ready, willing and able to dish it out, in massive quantities or guerrilla type or special operations type warfare, NO civil unrest can be sustained.
Yep, and I guess a whole lot of civilians would be quite angry if their daily lives were disturbed by people destroying lives and infrastructure. Just look how angry people already get when their buses or trains are not on time or simply out of service because of a walkout
They'll know where they stand but sheeple don't become warriors overnight. This will never happen because, using a somewhat understanding of history on my part tells me a successful outcome will also depend on swaying the armed forces (military), because without the direct or indirect aid of those with experience, training, and specific skills in the art of warfare, including organization, command and control, who are willing to take bullets for such abstract objectives as 'taking a hill' or 'securing a bridge, as well as being ready, willing and able to dish it out, in massive quantities or guerrilla type or special operations type warfare, NO civil unrest can be sustained.
Most certainly this would be an important requirement in such a venture, I do not doubt such. The civilian population, while capable, lacks any real organization, so it would certainly be a at a disadvantage. Though there are avenues to which could help with such. During our war for independence, we did have support from other countries, so such influence is not impossible, though that would open up a huge can of worms in itself and then there are issues of ulterior motives. A country during such times of conflict would be very vulnerable. It really is kind of disturbing to think about all of the factors in such an event.
Isn't part of the problem that it is NOT clear who is defending the constitution and how is violating it? It is also a matter of interpretation. If it were so clear, those offending it would already have been put to trial.
Nor is the constitution sacred or anything, maybe it should be updated from time to time.
While some things may be an issue as you describe, many are blatant. One needs to as you say "interpret" in very far reaching fashion to justify some of the laws we have seen over the many years.
Most though are obtained by careful study of the founders, their public statements, their letters, declarations and so on.
What has become "unclear" is the manner to which we have taught history over the years. It has become more and more vague, uses much more subjective interpretation with out contextual reference. things are not as "unclear" as you might think, they have become "unclear" over time and it is not surprising that at the same time actions by powers have benefited from such vague interpretations.
I don't mean to be offensive, but your support for why this hasn't been resolved is a bit naive. If you look closely, many have been found of such, many have been shown to be such, but the bureaucracy is a double edged sword. The very same qualities it holds to limit its power over the people also protects its offenders when it has become corrupt. The founders really made it clear we needed to be paying attention, they were adamant about it.
Most certainly this would be an important requirement in such a venture, I do not doubt such. The civilian population, while capable, lacks any real organization, so it would certainly be a at a disadvantage. Though there are avenues to which could help with such. During our war for independence, we did have support from other countries, so such influence is not impossible, though that would open up a huge can of worms in itself and then there are issues of ulterior motives. A country during such times of conflict would be very vulnerable. It really is kind of disturbing to think about all of the factors in such an event.
The difference is quite simply that England was only marginally dependent on its creditors. The US, for it to survive as an integrated entity, relies not only on "crushing" any uprising, but also on its ability to service debt. Try to crush it too quickly or too harshly, you'd have millions joining the "rebellion". It would be like the conflict in Afghanistan, on steroids.
No sir, rebels do not have to storm the white house as if it were Bastille Day or anything of the sort, they merely have to outlast DC's ability to "pay the bills", which is not very long at all if the very fragile supply lines for Texas oil and other domestic resources are cut off, or if the extremely fragile power grid became fragmented.
The difference is quite simply that England was only marginally dependent on its creditors. The US, for it to survive as an integrated entity, relies not only on "crushing" any uprising, but also on its ability to service debt. Try to crush it too quickly or too harshly, you'd have millions joining the "rebellion". It would be like the conflict in Afghanistan, on steroids.
No sir, rebels do not have to storm the white house as if it were Bastille Day or anything of the sort, they merely have to outlast DC's ability to "pay the bills", which is not very long at all if the very fragile supply lines for Texas oil and other domestic resources are cut off, or if the extremely fragile power grid became fragmented.
There is that I did not consider. Like I said, it is disturbing all of the issues that would involve in a nation such as ours in this time. My discussion is simply theoretical in response to the discussion brought up, and obviously missing various considerations.
As for the original question the initial poster brought up concerning this, I seriously doubt any wild action of neighbor versus neighbor would be the goal or even direction anyone would head for concerning the issue.
American OP: You should know when to start the revolution! I know that it should have been started the moment Bush lied about 9/11.
At least pick something that you can actually halfway support. This talking point is the red headed step child of uninformed and out of context claims.
We should all stop paying federal income taxes, the revolution can start when the IRS sends federal agents to come take your property.
I reckon you are not that far off, when the taxes start kicking and adding up for this massive entitlement, people might, MIGHT, wake up and start fighting back.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
