It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When is armed resistance to the government acceptable?

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

If you guys will put up with the privately owned Gestapo that is the Federal Reserve and its bloodhounds
the IRS then you deserve all you get.

the US government ceased to be what its founders wanted a long time ago.




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Excellent and well written post Dear Puppylove.

I personally could not take up arms, but I feel the frustration at the Western governments. We are supposed to be democracies. All of us in the U.S, U.K and Western Europe are no longer being represented properly. We are being dictated to. Just casting a ballot every four or five years is not democracy. We see that where voting is allowed, yet only one party ever gets power, in so many pseudo democracies. It seems we, too, are becoming pseudo democracies.

It is like the governments are some kind of power brokers now. The International corporations and bankers have all their needs met and the governments make sure the policies are inflicted on the people, backed by law and force if and when necessary.

I think they are playing a deadly game. I don't think we or them are in for an easy ride if things are allowed to continue to degenerate like this.

I am actually quite revolutionary in my own life like a one man band, but it is as pathetic as a striking matchstick against a raging forest fire in terms of significance.

Perhaps a few billion individual revolutions are required. Might that be a new way of handling the situation? We are all over the world already fully coordinated and in highly developed communication with each other. The generals of the World Wars would be well jealous of our liaison abilities. It does not require a leader, just many people feeling the same disillusionment and desiring change.

The old days of the hero leader revolutionary like Che Guavara are over. I don't trust groups particularly because they all have agendas and it is so easy for them to be infiltrated and compromised. They end up getting too high and mighty, forgetting their roots and become the same monster they once fought so hard to topple. Just about every revolution has ended up like that. Look at France as an example. Less than two hundred years later it is the same "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche" (Let them eat cake) scenario.(1)

I think consciousness raising and assertiveness are the best tools for winning our freedom. If everyone is educated and understands how unjust the systems we have to live under are, assert themselves and refuse to be treated the way they have been traditionally, then I think business can be done.

New times call for new tactics. I hope that imaginative people will help us to build a global consciousness of empowerment. That is the only kind of revolution I can think of that will have a degree of success. It is not my idea. I remember John Lennon speaking similar ideas in the early 1970s.

(1). It appears to be Rousseau who coined the "Let them eat cake" phrase in his "Confessions" book. He writes that it was a great princess who he heard say this and the rabble rousers used it as propaganda, as if it actually came from the lips of Marie Antoinette. There is no record she ever said such a thing.


edit on 5-1-2016 by Revolution9 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Only if it is absolutely necessary.

People talk about revolution but never talk about what happens after said revolution: How will the worlds leaders respond? will trade slow? will diplomatic relations suffer? people want change but are not sure how to change. Who's to say a new leader will not be ousted by a new revolution?

The system is far from perfect but it's easier to fix a house rather than tear it down and start over.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Puppylove
I recently read an op ed on CNN about the people occupying the buildings in the National Forrest. The writer said that it was obvious that these people were 'domestic terrorists'. It wasn't obvious to me. I actually find their action a good idea and thought provoking and the response of law enforcement to be good too. Though, a couple loud people in this 'occupying group' have, in the past, said things I find abhorrent on other issues..I was like "Good for them".
I find this example acceptable. They have a point.

source


Why did you find it a good idea that someone decided to bring in a mob to occupy state property because they didn't agree that someone else's sentence had been extended after an appeal that followed due process found it to be too lenient? Even the two people who have returned to jail distanced themselves from the action, so if they didn't think 'Good for them' then I'm puzzled why you do.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Revolution9

the UK has never been a democracy it has always been the haves dictating to the have nots.
it matters not who sits where in parliament it is all answerable to the crown (Rothschild's and their ilk)
just like the US



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove

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.


What a great question. Thank you for asking it

In my opinion, at this point, any armed rebellion would be a coup -- not a noble return to Natural Law and the Constitution -- and I could not support any such thing. For example, I completely agree with the Bundys that the Feds/BLM is grossly out of line and out of control, using (abusing) their power and authority for the best interests of the highest bidder, not the people. But I don't think the Bundy's have the best interests of the people at heart either... just their own best interests. Why trade one tyrant for another?


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 future?


The legal system is no longer our friend, if for no other reason than because it has been priced out of reach of most people. But we still have the power of the purse, as well as good old fashioned civil disobedience, even a national strike. The problem is us. We would have to actually unite around universal principles that benefited the greatest good of us all equally, and then stand together and work together and respect each other.


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 purpose.


Wouldn't that point be when the majority of the people can agree on what and how exactly the govt has crossed the line and what the proper rectification should be? We have nothing close to agreement within the populace on what constitutes government overreach or tyranny, so wouldn't any armed rebellion be just one group trying to force their will on everyone else?

But more important, I think, is that we also have the means for peaceful revolution written into our Constitution, and we still have the freedom -- and therefore power -- to affect peaceful change. At the very least, I'd rather see folks stop paying taxes first! Or a national strike day -- no one goes to work or anywhere or purchases anything for one day. If the collective will is not there to do so, then (again) wouldn't any armed rebellion be just one group trying to force their will on everyone else?


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?


When it is the collective will. When the majority can identify and agree on both the problem and the solution.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie




The system is far from perfect but it's easier to fix a house rather than tear it down and start over.


unless the house is condemned, then its easier to do the opposite....

not advocating for armed revolution here by any means....

As a man whose seen the face of war and death and what it can bring, doing my tours over seas, most people dont realize what it means to take up arms. And doing it on your own soil with a government thats proven to be vicious is a whole new dynamic.

Sometimes such a thing is your only choice, but most often there are other alternatives....

The problem is the people as a whole, be it racial tensions where they feel the gov isnt doing enough, or economic tension where they feel the gov isnt doing enough, rights encroachment, terror issues and protection etc etc etc...ALL of the groups in the US feel they are being ignored and violated.....

and THAT my friend is a recipe for disaster....

We are on the verge of change, its up to us to decide how its going to be done

if armed revolution is to happen, the people should not be the ones to fire the first shot....

IF a velvet revolution is at all possible, that should be the path we take....

Unity will decide our victory or defeat



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea
Very eloquently put and in agreement with my earlier more blunt interpretation. The truth is that while the overwhelming majority are too apathetic to leave the TV, join real protests or demonstrations, then armed uprising by the minority will be inappropriate.

Whining on ATS or fbook, and signing online petitions is the most the majority can be bothered to do. Hence no change, it ain't happening.

...I'll be interested when I see millions on US streets, but that apathy will be difficult to fix first.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: olaru12

Only true if the citizens in the military and police force choose the corrupt government over their legal right to fight the corrupt government should the time come. It's arguable that it is the police and military's duty to support the citizenry if they are in the right. In fact I'd say the oath to defend the constitution from threats both foreign and domestic demands the military join a legitimate revolution.

Is a matter of whether military citizens are capable and willing to support the populace if in the right, or if TPBTis too entrenched in their organizations and the citizens that make up the military and police force too indoctrinated to join the citizens cause.



The military and the cops will support the entity that write their pay checks.

How do you determine a legitimate revolution. Many who claim to advocate a revolution really want a civil war for their control over the people; just trading masters....

Insurrections take leaders.....do you see any?

The Bundys?


edit on 5-1-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove



When is armed resistance to the government acceptable?


When government violates its oath, tramples constitution and seeks to render population into obedient robots.

Nuff said.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Puppylove

Armed resistance should only happen after all peaceful solutions have been exhausted. Once a Government becomes burdensome to the people it must be replaced.


Sounds like BLM, and BLM are both bullyish domestic terrorists that try to take what they think is theirs.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
A lot of the founding fathers didn't want to break away from the crown but eventually it became impossible to stay under it and thus there was a major war and i can see a point in the US where enough people get annoyed and start something lets say like a few thousand people marching peacefully with rifles on their backs to the hill and of course the TV will love it and if anything happens to them it'll be an outrage which will whip up more support and thus things will change.

I'm sure I read somewhere that some of the founding fathers expected the system to be in a 20 year loop where revolution would allow them to start again just keeping the best bits.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove




That such was the case is built into the constitution.


Where? Are you confusing Federalist papers, Thomas Paine's writings and the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution?

The Constitution was written a decade or so after the revolutionary period and does not give citizens the right to 'overthrow' the government.

It does define treason in Article 3 Section 3:




Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.


So, according to the Constitution no war against the government will be considered anything but treason. In fact, King George charged the rebels of the revolution with treason because by its very definition it is the act of trying to dispose and hinder a government.

I would also like to note what Boadicea said:




But more important, I think, is that we also have the means for peaceful revolution written into our Constitution, and we still have the freedom -- and therefore power -- to affect peaceful change. At the very least, I'd rather see folks stop paying taxes first! Or a national strike day -- no one goes to work or anywhere or purchases anything for one day. If the collective will is not there to do so, then (again) wouldn't any armed rebellion be just one group trying to force their will on everyone else?


Most posts on this thread that deal with the necessary violent overthrow of the United States government seem to come from a large variety of beliefs and backgrounds. If one side was to win would they listen to others that might have different views or would they themselves become tyrants?

Anyway great question but somewhat sad responses



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Are you a really a revolutionary if only a small percentage of your countrymen supports you and a significantly larger percentage opposes?

No?

The first two questions any would be revolutionary should be asking are whether or not his cause is just and popular and if all peaceful means of bringing about the desired changes have been exhausted. If most people don't want your revolution, you're just an asshole trying to force your will on everyone else.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
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 future?

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 purpose.

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 people.

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?



In the words of Cenk Uygur "wolf - pac .com"

Appearently only white hill billies who owe millions are able too do that. Or if you are a bundy.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

Modern Americans have no idea what a tyrannical government would be or act like. Most just project their ideas from Hollywood onto the current government or are just overly paranoid.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
It is the intention to replace all the squeaky cogs. The machine demands it. Only the oil and wine stand in the way. So be it.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand

...but while the majority are too lazy and apathetic to get off their arses watching crap TV, nope, it ain't gonna happen, and noor should it if that's what the majority want.


To be honest, less than half of the colonialists fully supported independence in the first place and less than... I think less than 5%?... of Americans actually fought in the Revolutionary War. Quite a few of those didn't necessarily want to fight, either. Washington even wrote of the "chimney-corner heroes" who would rather retire to a nice warm corner near the chimney than fight for their country.

Despite all that, they still successfully built a new nation. Don't underestimate a handful of dedicated people.

Also, the problem with "the majority" is that "the majority" rarely ever say what they want. It's then left to whichever of the various minority groups can be the most vocal about claiming to speak for that silent majority.



posted on Jan, 5 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

The rise of groups and actions like the TEA Party, Occupy, BLM and what we see going on with Ammon Bundy out in Oregon are all a direct result of abuse or perceived abuse of government power (yes, even Occupy although they don't understand it). MLK and the Civil Rights movements were the same impulse. This is a right we have as citizens, and while methods are not always legal (Ammon Bundy, MLK and BLM) and the choice of protesting venue doesn't always make any sense (Occupy and BLM), we do have the right to take that step to make our voices heard.

At that point, the ball is in the government's court to decide how to respond. Response isn't always completely non-violent, but so far, it hasn't been brutal to the point of quashing and punishing far and wide beyond the group. I believe this is because government has so far recognized that when it gets groups like these, it is teetering on the knife edge of losing consent of the governed on a much wider basis than a fringe movement.

We'll see how this government proceeds. It has a track record of being tone deaf.



new topics




 
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join