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.

 

American Revolution II: Which is more important - Free Speech or Bear Arms?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I find it ironic that you call me immature because I used a 'naughty word', and yet you take a reasonable position, and throw out accusations of being a nazi, bigot and racist. Thats immature, not dropping the f-bomb.


Ok, I won't be so anal. I just want to make sure the atmosphere here in this thread is conducive for honest dialogue and not mere rantings, I'm not saying you are ranting. Let's start over ok?


I disagree that a violent revolution to overthrow the government is needed.


Is it ever possible? I'm sure we can both agree it is, but I understand the point you make further on...let's go there.



Free speech and assembly and voting are the best ways to get the government to change.


I think differently. You see I have been gased, shot and beat by the Police of Seattle for doing just this. I didn't break any law or was associated with any illegal group doing any illegal activity. I merely had a sign that said 'Fair Trade for Free People'



Free speech is nearly universally in-effective at overthrowing governments, only gandhi had been able to accomplish that.


I would go so far as to say is 100 percent ineffective. It's a joy to be enjoyed by people who have a great government, not a tool to destroy evil ones.



As for the revolution being a minority movement, well, what else could it be? If a majority of the people wanted it, so much that tehy were ready to go military on it, then they'd've been able to change it simply by voting.


I would agree except that politicians and corporations manipulate the votes of the people through propaganda and money.


00psHowever, when my countrymen are stiffled and oppressed and repressed for their revolution, how can I sit back and not defend our right to revolt to the death, either the enemy or my own?



Well, what are you waiting for?


The current situation doesn't necessitate a revolution. Only verbal assessment and complaint by the people that is recognized and acknowledged by the goverment.


00ps if there is a revolution in the USA against the powers that be[...]what do you think would be more valuable for success of the revolution - the right to bear arms or the right to free speech?




It would depend on the goals of the revolution, but in general, I would say that any military attempt is doomed to absolute failure, so 'speech' is going to be more important, but 'speech' isn't going to result in an overthrow of government. So if its a 'revolution', it almost certainly has to be a military action, which means its doomed ot failure. So no revolution can work. Change can be effected, and very simply. By voting. If people don't agree with the revolutionaries, then what 'right' to they have to claim to be more democratic than the government?


Goals: Re-Evolution of a Government for the people and by the people.




posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PSever more clear to myself that revolution through warfare seems more logical and more likely to succeed

Please explain how, espeically since the administration is so 'evil' in this hypothetical example, the revolutionaries are able to magically not be killed by combined arms, along with chemical and biological warfare? If the current militias that operate are at the 'threshold' level of what you can have before you are destroyed, how can the incredible sophistication needed to defeat teh US army in teh field be attained?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   
seekerof, duly noted and edited
but dont sell yourself short!

I dont think voting is going to change anything. I have seen the corruption too many times. a politician on the state level who is a great man doing great things but once voted into the big show it all changes. the money and power is on a much larger scale and it thoroughly and absolutely corrupts. people who are strong enough to fight the corruption dont last long. the only way for that to work would be an exodus of politicians on an unprecedented scale, say 80% of the power players. then you would still have to ensure all the money and underhanded corporate politics were taken out of the equation. as it stands now it is a government of the money, for the money, by the money and noone you will elect can change that! they either already have money and are protecting their interests, seeking money with only self interest in mind or bought by the money into the corruption. for control to get back to the people you have to take away the money!

the first step is to ensure any elected official does not accept money from any influential outsider. this should be considered treason and punished by death! the main problem is campaign contributions, as the candidate isnt an elected official yet. automatic disqualification is the solution. also I believe the campaigns should be funded by the feds. give each candidate a modest and equal amount to campaign with. enforce strict limitations on appearances, commercials, etc. have the government oversee the spending and ensure no outside funds are used. this levels the playing field & gives the average middle class candidate a chance without having to sell his influence to the highest bidder...

I could go on & on all night. so much has to change to get this thing back on track & it is all going the other direction. I am very pessimistic about the whole deal.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS

Goals: Re-Evolution of a Government for the people and by the people.


IE: A true democracy? - equaling what, two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner? = mob rule. (why have a constitution - make it up as you go)

NO THANKS

I'll stick with the Republic and its government of laws.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
Let's start over ok?

No need to 'start' over but i understand what you are saying, sure.
it is, but I understand the point you make further on...let's go there.



I think differently. You see I have been gased, shot and beat by the Police of Seattle for doing just this. I didn't break any law or was associated with any illegal group doing any illegal activity.

The WTO summit? The people there got exactly what they deserved. The internationalist anarchist element associated with these wto protests, as at teh montreal one, were enough alone to warrant massed response. And when you were gassed, it was not a good feeling no? That was merely tear gas, which is nothing. Its not even a powerful sort of gas for its purposes. New imagine what happens to the hypothesized 'revolutionaries/tyrants' when its VX. Or, heck, good old mustard gas. Difficult to 'smash the fascist insect' when your flesh boils off its own bones.

[quiote] I merely had a sign that said 'Fair Trade for Free People'
Wrong. You did not merely have a sign. You were part and parcel of a dangerous mob. You didn't make it dangerous, but thats hardly important.


I would agree except that politicians and corporations manipulate the votes of the people through propaganda and money.

Well, if you are convinced that there is an evil conspiracy behind everything that I guess there isn't much to discuss on that point.


The current situation doesn't necessitate a revolution. Only verbal assessment and complaint by the people that is recognized and acknowledged by the goverment.

If the vote is rigged such that the government is not democratic, and the people who rig the vote are keeping themselves in power thru conspiracy and illusion, then a revolution is necessary.

[the small number of militant revolutionaries are justified by their]Goals: Re-Evolution of a Government for the people and by the people.

But its not a governemtn 'for and by the people', its a government that is in line with what they want the government to be.



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:43 PM
link   
It was a military grade CS gas.


CS is an abbreviation for O-chlorobenzylidene malonontrite. The properties of this compound were first discovered by American chemists in 1928, and the potential chemical warfare uses were suggested by a Dutch writer in 1934. During World War Two scientists in various countries studied the effects of the compound but it wasn't seriously developed as a weapon until the mid 1950's. The first widespread use of it was during the Vietnam War and since then it has remained a weapon in the arsenal of armies and police forces the world over.


[edit on 6-3-2005 by 00PS]



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

Originally posted by 00PS

Goals: Re-Evolution of a Government for the people and by the people.


IE: A true democracy? - equaling what, two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner? = mob rule. (why have a constitution - make it up as you go)

NO THANKS

I'll stick with the Republic and its government of laws.


Who said anything about democracy? A republic is a republic but we have a democratic system of representation don't we? Well our representatives are not representing us. That makes us a government of people not for the people but for themselves and the goverment entity. The re-evolution of the goverment entails that the people own the government and the goverment works for the people....

The idea you posted...

two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner? = mob rule. (why have a constitution - make it up as you go)
NO THANKS

I'll stick with the Republic and its government of laws too
But I also want a government full of people that answer to the people and are hold accountable for their actions and decisions.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
2nd Amendment lets me say what I want. This really is a dumb thread. No form of government that reigns over the people who are presently called Americans can disarm us without a horrible war. This allows us to say whatever we want. The Government can chip away at the 1st amendment all they want. They cant take my 3 weapons without a fight.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kinja
2nd Amendment lets me say what I want. This really is a dumb thread. No form of government that reigns over the people who are presently called Americans can disarm us without a horrible war. This allows us to say whatever we want. The Government can chip away at the 1st amendment all they want. They cant take my 3 weapons without a fight.


Hi Kinja, If you think the thread is dumb, why post? Thanks for posting though. So what are you talking about, I'm confused.

No one is talking about disarming Americans or taking away their right to speech. The question is which is more valuable in a revolution, the right to free speech or the right to bear arms?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

What good are shot-gun militias against blister and nerve agents?

I'd say that if the second amendment is ever challenged, there will be people who defect from the military and provide commensurate arms for the revolution. They'll smuggle military equipment and weapons out to the militia. I know military guys who will leave if the 2nd Amendment is threatened. Who'd want to fight for such an un-American ideal?

If the second amendment is threatened, that means America is not America anymore. As a result, that means America (and the military) are fair game. I'll never give up my rifle and I think that there are soldiers/marines/saliors who would join my side rather than to serve a disarmament scheme. Am I assuming too much support for the second amendment among our armed forces?

If the first amendment goes away, the second will not protect us, but if we lose the second, the first will surely follow. A conumdrum. They seem linked, frankly.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
These days, "arms" that could be used to keep a government in check are a completely different thing.


I would have to agree with you on the free speech aspect, but would think that the Viet-Cong and Iraqi insurgents would tend to disagree with that statement.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Originally posted by OOPS


I'll stick with the Republic and its government of laws too
But I also want a government full of people that answer to the people and are hold accountable for their actions and decisions.


You can vote can you not? or is it that you don't like the results of voting by your fellow citizens?

The president does'nt control squat when it comes to long term policy - all that power is in the hands of your state legislature and both houses of the US congress. Vote if you don't like policy - if the rest of the citizenry does not agree with your politics - thems the breaks.

If you really want control back such as people of other generations had I suggest the solution is to end the entitlement programs that allow the current crop to gain election time after time.

It is dependence on these government programs that allow the power shift that you complain of. We give it in order to derive benefits otherwise unavailable - but with strings attached.

No Dependance = No Power


As far as the amendments go they are part and parcel necessary in support of each other.

The 1st allows us to do what we're doing today without interference, the 2nd guarantee's there is no way to end the 1st without a bloody battle.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   
smallpeeps, the second amendment has been challenged before and will be again. it wont be an all at once strategy, but a slow & methodical one. until recently there were bans on particular firearms and magazines over a certain capacity. that was the second amendment being challenged, albeit small potatoes. more of the slight of hand tactics being incorporated. keep the people focused on the small stuff so they dont have time for the big picture.

pistol pete, I dont think the Viet Cong or Iraqi insurgents are doing much damage with weapons that are legal to the average US citizen...unless you have a permit for full auto AK-47's, RPG's, grenades and other exploseves, etc...



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

You can vote can you not? or is it that you don't like the results of voting by your fellow citizens?

Mainly it's the apathy of voting rather that begets me. It's also the manipulation of politicians and money that corrupts the vote. You speak with such authority on the issue but I am sure you cannot deny that voting irregularities occur. The power is not in the hands of the voters but in the hands of those who count the votes.



The president does'nt control squat when it comes to long term policy - all that power is in the hands of your state legislature and both houses of the US congress.
Even when the president is the son of a past president. I don't really agree with you on that. If Clinton didn't get in the way (which was probably just a planned democratic vacation from the republican agenda) the long term agenda of the Republicans would have advanced a lot quicker.


Vote if you don't like policy - if the rest of the citizenry does not agree with your politics - thems the breaks.


Well, if 90 percent of a nation doesn't agree with senator Byrd, but 10% of the nation are responsible for voting him in and out of office and he gets 6% of that 10% then I'd say that's not really legitimate. Especially when he can make decisions on American policies but the rest of the citizenry cannot hold him accountable because his constituents continually re-elect him. I am not saying anything about about Byrd, I'm just giving an example.


I think dependance is also to blame. But Phoenix we are kinda talking about something else here arn't we?

Let me put it to you this way. When the voting process has become obviously corrupt but the American public is impotent to act, which method would you choose. Armed rebellion or Massive Propaganda Campaign ?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Opps, the question you ask is so meaningless, it is as relevant as asking someone, "While Jogging which shoe is more important, the left shoe or the right shoe." One thing that it seems you are just missing totally is, during a revolution the revolutionaries will not care that they break the law to speak out they will just choose who is in the audience wisely, they also will not care if they're in possession of weapons that also breaks laws.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kinja
Opps, the question you ask is so meaningless, it is as relevant as asking someone, "While Jogging which shoe is more important, the left shoe or the right shoe." One thing that it seems you are just missing totally is, during a revolution the revolutionaries will not care that they break the law to speak out they will just choose who is in the audience wisely, they also will not care if they're in possession of weapons that also breaks laws.


Actually that's not true. Some people are under the belief, like Phoenix I assume, that all internal change within a country should happen through a legal means which would mean using free speech as well as voting and what not.

Others believe that, still by legal means, using the right to bear arms and revolt against a tyrannical government is a more successful way.

Kinja, let your personal beefs with me be settled with U2U's. Maybe you don't like my avatar, maybe you don't like my signature, maybe you don't like me - I don't care. If you don't like the forum please go away. No one is asking you to come here and tell me and others how much this forum topic sucks.

Also, please read page one before you respond to page two.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
You are talking a hypothetical, There is no way around the 2 party system. It seems like there is on paper, and in theory, but there's not. No party in America can rise to any real level because the average citizen could not be bothered. Living in candyland will keep this realization from you. The 2 party system is a racket of big money lobbies and widespread corruption.

The democracy, or better yet corpocrisy, that we exist under will not be removed without violence. There isn't going to be a day where a new party will sweep widespread across the US and enable the voting power in the House to toss out the constitution in favor of a new one. The 14th amendment turned you from a component of the government into a possession of the government. The 14th amendment allows the government to use all means necessary to destroy any insurrection or rebellion including borrowing money to finance the fight or bounties.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I'm glad you understand we are talking hypothetical. The title of the thread is American Revolution II: ~

There hasn't been a second revolution that I know of so...

Did you ever state your opinion? Which is more valuable in a revolution, free speech or right to bear arms. You said any revolution would be breaking the law, but I don't understand the constitution as you do. I think we have the right to rebel, which means we would have all of our full rights to assist us in that.

So, which is more valuable? Words or Guns?



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
Again sir, you seem to be missing a glaring issue. In a revolution, the revolutionaries do not care about the laws of the government they are revolting against. So nobody can really take away either when the revolutionaries have throw the "permission given" for free speech/right to bear arms, away.

The first sentance I wrote in this thread should answer your question about which I believe is more important.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kinja
Again sir, you seem to be missing a glaring issue. In a revolution, the revolutionaries do not care about the laws of the government they are revolting against. So nobody can really take away either when the revolutionaries have throw the "permission given" for free speech/right to bear arms, away.

The first sentance I wrote in this thread should answer your question about which I believe is more important.


Really? How about the Ukrainians, or recently the Lebanese? What glaring issue do I seem to be missing? I don't think I am missing any 'glaring' issue. I have threads about Guerilla Warfare and I also have threads about legal revolution too. As Americans we can revolt against our government and bear arms and speak freely. It seems you, 'sir' must be missing some 'glaring' issue.

The first sentance you wrote in this thread was short. Much like the arguement you have made. I assume it's finished.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join