posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:05 AM
With recent events, this becomes an important question. Civil unrest is a growing problem in the US, and with things like the patriot act, bank
bailouts, and so much more, it seems like an issue that will continue to keep growing.
With a government controlled not by the people but outside forces in the form of corporations and special interests. The legal ways of fighting
against corruption are becoming more and more futile as time moves on. Will frustration created by this cause more armed civil unrest in the
Our nations founders made it clear that there are and will be times when revolution is necessary. That such was the case is built into the
constitution. We even have the second amendment protecting the citizens rights to remained and armed organized populace partly for this express
Now I'm not saying we should take up arms yet, but I want to know when it moves from being automatically considered to be terrorism to take up arms
to actually full filling the rights and duty set forth by our forefathers to protect the citizenry from a government that's no longer for the
This seems to be and important line to define. When is it terrorism, and when is it our duty to each other in defense of house and country?
There comes a time where protesting, lawsuits, and other less violent means become laughable to a truly entrenched political force, and are about as
effective as spinning in circles screaming "I'm a fairy lalalala!!!!"
When is revolution not only acceptable but the duty of every citizen in defense of the foundations the country was built upon? At what point do those
in power cross the line, and at what point does the futility of peaceful means of resistance require taking up arms?
Are you of the belief armed resistance and revolution is never acceptable? Where do you draw the line?