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

Originally posted by 00PS
It was a military grade CS gas.

How do you know this? I'd be genuinely surprised if the police were using military concentrations of CS gas, usually a much lowr concentration or somesuch is used. I'd also be genuinely surprised if they admited to using the military as opposed to the civilian type. How do you know thats what was used?

And considering how effective it is, how can the threat of arms be brought against the military, when mere police can defeat radicals?

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

This makes no sense, you are advocating open and armed rebellion. Thats the abolition of rule of law and government.

Not in America its not. We have the right to revolt when our government has been deemed tyrannical. That's within full scope of the constitution, the founding law of our country.

How did I know it was CS...Not only was it CS, they had military training how to use it. They didn't just trow it at us...

They would cordone (spelling?) us at a 4 way intersection, the big ones down town, they blocked 3 roads so only one, escape, reteat through the rear. Then they shot canisters of tear gas at us with rubber bullets. The crowd stampedes back to the open street behind, then the launch more canisters there so we have to run through more. It's crazy. We gotta get outta the gas, you can't breath, your heart gets slow, your mind races, death? then when we start to run we are just running into more. This was strategic paramilitary planning on behalf ot he Dept of Police in the City of Seattle.

I got gassed 3 times in one day. You can't imagine it. You really can't. I couldn't speak for a weak - shock. Unless you have been attacked with chemical weapons you really can't understand. I don't want to talk about it. How did I know it was CS, because it was identified as such. This was my first time, but not others. Some had been in europe and been gassed by police in europe with tear gas. Tear gas is nothing they said, it's just unpleasant.

The mace they sprayed in the eyes though, the pepper stuff...that was horrible too, but I didn't get close enough for them to do that to me, that's why I got the rubber bullets in the back.

And I got what I deserve according to one ATS member beacause I was in a mob.

So now in America a mob is this? Sorry we had a permit, the right and freedom to assemble and speak freely. To march and to protest.

That was taken away from me.

So now in America a mob is this? Sorry we had a permit, the right and freedom to assemble and speak freely. To march and to protest.

Interesting account. In one of Alex Jones' videos (Police State 2000? I can't rememeber) he presents clear evidence that there were teenage anarchists that had been planted in a building near the where the WTO protests were scheduled to take place. On film, these anarchists are clearly shown throwing newspaper boxes through windows and generally trashing the shops and businesses. These planted troublemakers were necessary for the problem-reaction-solution machinery to move smoothly. There is also video of peaceful protestors trying to stop these anarchists.

In this framework, civil disobedience becomes impossible (it's quite brilliant, actually) because the elites will sow their own troublemakers into the crowd. In this way, no public demonstrations can take place because the police will always have a (manufactured) reason to 'disperse' the crowd. Those cops were the police of the future. Armored, righteous and hateful. Very scary.

I think the first and second amendments are so simplistic that they don't fit anymore. There is simply no way for a revolution to occur with (A) firearms or (B) speech in America. Instead, in order to change America, you'd have to organize tax-strikes and work-strikes on a massive scale. This is the only thing that works in prison.


[edit on 7-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

I would guess that if both rights were at the risk of being lost, I would have to opt for the guns simply because if you were not eleoquint and do not know how to speak well, the guns could be inserted to push the issue either way. It goes back to that phrase "You cannot run a smart play against a dumb team because they will screw you up every time" They are in essence too dumb to realize that you are attempting to run a smart play. This holds true in about 98%of the time. The other 2% is up for debate. The smart money would be on the guns from a purely agressive stand point of veiw. The ideal situation would be having both at the same time as we do now. In the near furture (and it will be a sad day,) but we are going to lose both. I would then ask you the question: Which one do you think will be lost or(taken) first?

Originally posted by smallpeeps

he presents clear evidence that there were teenage anarchists that had been planted in a building near the where the WTO protests were scheduled to take place. On film, these anarchists are clearly shown throwing newspaper boxes through windows and generally trashing the shops and businesses. ...There is also video of peaceful protestors trying to stop these anarchists.

In this framework, civil disobedience becomes impossible (it's quite brilliant, actually) because the elites will sow their own troublemakers into the crowd. In this way, no public demonstrations can take place because the police will always have a (manufactured) reason to 'disperse' the crowd. Those cops were the police of the future. Armored, righteous and hateful. Very scary.

I think the first and second amendments are so simplistic that they don't fit anymore. There is simply no way for a revolution to occur with (A) firearms or (B) speech in America. Instead, in order to change America, you'd have to organize tax-strikes and work-strikes on a massive scale. This is the only thing that works in prison.

Great stuff smallpeeps.

Blows me away that people still talk about the right to bear arms as a protection against the state. Like anything less than nukes might be effective, or like nukes are even a good idea.

Terrorists are the only people fighting at all effectively against tyranny - and look what kind of reputation they've got now.




...Think you're right. Tax-strikes and work-strikes on a massive scale. But how do you get there? ...Needs lots of ground work and organization. Else dissenters will be picked off as terrorists one by one, under the Patriot Act.


.

freedom of speech will be more important in the upcoming revolution, because it will have to be a peaceful revolution (none other will work).

arms will be useless, unless you relish the thought of dieing in front of a media circus with a city worth of people camped outside your "compound".
(the Koresh method)

or go out fightin, and get burned down in the first step... (the iraqi method)

so peaceful revolution is the ONLY option... the military has ways to hurt an armed revolution that don't even have names yet... but will turn a giant armed man into a crying beggin baby with the push of a finger...

freedom of speech can be used to organize sit ins and other nonviolent methods of resistance (the Gandhi method) that do work...

laz

[edit on 7-3-2005 by LazarusTheLong]

Tax-strikes and work-strikes on a massive scale. But how do you get there?

Well, you'd have to have a scheduled time to do it and you'd have to manipulate the media to cover it. I guess tax-strikes would be tough because even if you got 10,000 Americans to refuse to pay their income tax for a year, these people would quickly be branded un-American. It's better than shooting people though, which would accomplish nothing.

Work-strikes would be easy but you'd have to have a massive amount of people who are prepared to lose their jobs. Let's say you get a million people (like the million-man march) to stay home for a week in protest of a particular issue. That might get the elites' attention. If these people have vacation time, they could use that, perhaps. The point is to make the point that WE THE PEOPLE have the power.

The problem is, the nature of our Senate and Executive office is that they are easily corrupted. American citizens would have to develop a vigilant mindset to keep corrupt war-profiteers out of office. Can it be done? Yes. Would it be done without bloodshed and massive mayhem? I doubt it.

If the Bush cabal thought they could disarm us Americans they would have done so by now. It's only by coddling the gun-owners that Bush got elected so if he touches the second amendment, he's toast. I'll go down fighting in that case. The second amendment IS the constitution, as far as I am concerned. Once the world becomes nice due to a massive paradigm shift, I might consider getting rid of my guns but until that day, pass the ammo.

EDIT: I think this is why the PNAC knows that they need to initiate martial law before guns can be removed. How does one go about initiating martial law in America? Oh, I'm sure thay've thought that through as well.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by smallpeeps]

Never give up your guns boys, never.

Roper

Originally posted by 00PS
...in a new American revolution, which would be more valuable. The guns or the tounge?

At first? the guns.

Once it was all said and done (and over) i'd imagine the winning side could say what ever the heck it wanted really.

Originally posted by 00PS
The question is which is more valuable in a revolution, the right to free speech or the right to bear arms?

OOPS,

If you don't already know, we've had our revolution and there will be no compromise on the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights weren't designed to take precedence over one another. They were designed to give Americans the fullness of freedom.

If we are to experience one and not the other, we wouldn't have the freedom that's granted to us in the Amendments.

That's about all I can say right now. 0500 hours comes early!

[edit on 7/3/05 by Intelearthling]

American Revolution II: well if this happens it would give good proof that J Tittor was a time traveler and kiss yer ass goodbye when Russia nukes hit in 10 or so years.

The constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, moreover is its Bill of Rights also as a treaty de facto with the people of the states? It is as well an even more important part of the Supreme Law of the Land. Why do I say the Bill of Rights is de facto or de jure as treaty with the States and their citizens? Because it was the only way that the States would agree to a Constitution, where limitations upon a federal government allowed it to be ratified. Over many years no Treaty with a Foreign government has been encroached, because Treaties are "The Supreme Law of the Land," even when findings contrary to the Constitution are involved in their application. Now the point is that the Bill of Rights is superior to the federally applied facets of the Constitution or what we should rightfully consider the preamble of the Bill of Rights. That preamble is what we consider as the Constitution, however it includes the Bill of Rights, it is one unified document.

When we go beyond de facto and beyond de jure, and apply these things as an actual Treaty of the Federal Government with the States, and their Sovereign citizens, what then? As a citizen of a State, and as a Sovereign citizen in your own right, your treaty rights are above that of the federal government, and as delineated through the 10th amendment a matter of the utmost importance. You are not a subject but a citizen.

Now as to an order of importance for any of these rights, the essence of common law is how people carry themselves in their day to day life as to norms. The first amendment upholds the law when government works, and affirms those inclusive rights. The second amendment is for defense of sovereign citizens in the early days against invasion domestically and from overseas, but also in the face of early founding writings against tyranny from government. That includes both from the States, and the Federal Government. It is your duty as a sovereign citizen not a subject to any other power, any king, any magistrate, to uphold and enforce your rights. The second amendment is the instrument when the first amendment fails. John F. Kennedy said "Those who make peaceful change impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." But this does not go for simply large scale things, but a deterrence from encroachments.

The most important thing is to know your rights, and why free speaking is not simply about some rant or rap, but it is about making a better world without having to resort to the second amendment option.

It is only when the government makes the first amendment ineffective that the second amendment tragically becomes "more important." So I vote with the order of importance as delineated through the founding fathers, the first amendment first, and having an effective voice as far more important than all the apparati the government parades to cover up a deficiency of its own foolish design, namely suppression of effective free speaking. Any government that applies force to suppress the clear light of day from its own citizens has already assumed for itself the importance of its own armament, having insufficient words to cover itself. Citizens are thereby justified reasserting their first amendment prerogatives, but reserved in delineating the order of importance for the second amendment as it applies to their own self defence when reason fails.

The people of the States have always had a high threshold for deciding when "reason fails," as being a patient people. We have always had a great faith generally in our normative functions as to institutions. We have considered them to uphold to a great extent "the way things should be." People have patiently awaited "the next election," when considering things to be next to intolerable, call it a "clash of personalities, or styles." We are in a curious place right now.

[edit on 8-3-2005 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by 00PS
Not in America its not. We have the right to revolt when our government has been deemed tyrannical. That's within full scope of the constitution, the founding law of our country.

Its most certainly not in the constitution. The Declaration of Independence can serve as a justification for a revolt, not the constitution. THe contsitution does not 'permit' armed rebellion. The Declaration of Indepedence explicitly makes it incumbent upon men to revolt if they suffer under tyranny, not the constitution.

Thus, any armed rebellion will be treated as treason and any armed rebels can be rounded up and physically destroyed, all fully within the law and without any ability to appeal to the constitution to protect their actions.

It's crazy. We gotta get outta the gas, you can't breath, your heart gets slow, your mind races, death? then when we start to run we are just running into more.

This was strategic paramilitary planning on behalf ot he Dept of Police in the City of Seattle.

This is the most basic tactic of dealing with large crowds. ANd the police are a paramilitary force.

I got gassed 3 times in one day. You can't imagine it. You really can't. I couldn't speak for a weak - shock.

Let me simply state that you were not attacked with military grade CS gas. The type that the military uses is much more powerful than the type that the police use. If the gassing was that horrible to you than I suggest you drop any pretense of being able to fight a revolution.

The mace they sprayed in the eyes though, the pepper stuff...that was horrible too, but I didn't get close enough for them to do that to me, that's why I got the rubber bullets in the back.

You should probably realize then that if you actually took up, or, realistically, actually suggested armed insurrection, that it will be real bullets you are running from. If thousands of you couldn't stand up to hundreds of police using weak gas and non-lethal weapons, then you will stand absolutely no chance against the military.
Heck, they probably won't even use the military, they'll probably just treat it as a police action and that should suffice.

And I got what I deserve according to one ATS member beacause I was in a mob.

You most certainly did and that ATS member was obivously me.

So now in America a mob is this?

A mob is a mob, assuredly. The rabble in seattle was a mob, with internationalist anarchists and communists organizing at least some of it, just as at Montreal. I noticed that after Montreal and Seattle the mobs went thru great efforts to not provoke police response. I guess that the 'radical base' got pretty tired pretty quickly of quasi-fighting.

More evidence that arms will not result in revolution.

Sorry we had a permit, the right and freedom to assemble and speak freely. To march and to protest.

Indeed, you were given a protest permit. That permit does not permit you to disobey police orders. You did, as you were part of the mob that broke the permit and broke the law. Its too bad those microwave projectors they have now weren't around then, those'd've been intersting to see in action.

 

soficrow
Terrorists are the only people fighting at all effectively against tyranny - and look what kind of reputation they've got now.

? Do you view bin ladin as a freedom fighter? Was 911 an attack against tyranny?

 

lazarusthelong
freedom of speech can be used to organize sit ins and other nonviolent methods of resistance (the Gandhi method) that do work...

Or, uhm, vote. Which would be more effective, and wouldn't even be a revolution.

Sorry the gas wasn't weak...I lived in washington state and we got lots of things that stink, from wood mills to cow farms and other things too. Stench is stench.


Obviously you've never been attacked with chemical weapons.


We didn't break any laws. It was the policemen who instigated everything just so they could train the police on crowd control and paramilitary procedure.


I don't like to demean people so I'll shut up now. But I tell you this, if you think I deserved that treatment you're going to wake up in a scary situation someday and I won't tell you I told you so, but I'm telling you now, you better be prepared.

And it was military CS gas that was supplied to them from Fort Lewis...************sensitive info ******************
And you can't tell me that 300,000 people deserve getting gassed because of a few minority..

That is where you are wrong...

It was the practice of the U.S. government to take away citizen rights and to guage public reaction...

gauging your reaction it looks like America is doing just like I thougt it was....

[edit on 8-3-2005 by 00PS]

the anarchists were only marching and playing drums at first....after the police kicked our arses, then they started dumpter fires...when they started shooting people with the rubber bullets where are really steel covered by hard plastic....then they broke windows...

it wasn't what you are saying...i was there, i know..

Originally posted by 00PS
the anarchists were only marching and playing drums at first....after the police kicked our arses, then they started dumpter fires...when they started shooting people with the rubber bullets where are really steel covered by hard plastic....then they broke windows...

it wasn't what you are saying...i was there, i know..

A grip on reality is what you need. There are many groups who would like to see the Corpocrisy of the US tossed out. Imagine for a moment many groups come together for the "common good" and toss out the 2 party system as well as the morons who are interpreting the Constitution on the SCOTUS. Who protects the Country from invasion during this time? Who protects the Nuclear Inventory, The Secret Labs... Who stops the commanding officer of the Military from declaring Martial Law and seizing power? Who holds the Union together?

Lets hear your "plan"....

There was a revolution during the 60/70s that was fought dominantly with free speech and right to assemble. The civil rights movement won through greater and greater public pressure -- the Government (local and State) used violence but was unable to break the backbone of the movement. The Vietnam anti-war movement crescendoed and it was the Government that used violence, which did accelerate the crowd into mob-like behavior a few times.

True, there were several minor groups who proclaimed violent revolution, but their numbers never exceeded a few hundred, such as the Black Panthers, the Bader-Meinhof group, and even the Symbionese Liberation "Army." The backlash from the used of force by the government in Montgomery AL against civil rights advocate, at Kent State, and at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, brought more people into the protests.

For the most part, civil rights laws were passed and we pulled out of VietNam, due to an expanding visible movement of non-violent people who demonstrated against the public policies of the Government.

Very few people want a complete overthrow of the government -- most want some aspects changed. This means that 1st Amendment rights will be seen by the vast majority as more important than the 2nd for pragmatic and practical purposes. We have as yet to field a demonstration anything comparable to the Hezbollah in Lebanon yesterday over any of the issues facing us in the U.S.



[edit on 8/3/05 by LdyGuique]

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
These days, there's little reason to have a firearm unless you regularly rely on game to fill your fridge. So the need for a weapon is not essential. However, the need to freely express your opinion without government controls is vitally essential.

I'd have to say that the ability to defend your person and property are pretty important.

Without the second amendment, you can sing on your way to the gallows.

That's all.

i say:

the right to bear arms...

i say this because: if you have freedom of speach, you can talk all you want and the government will not change (kind of like america now)...

but if everyone has guns, we can revolt (revolution) and change it they way it was intended or they way we want...

BTW great thread...

A reply to some recent comments and their authors:



Intelearthling: Thanks, I'm up to date on American History, I belive the revolution was in the 1700's wasn't it? And the thread isn't about experieincing one without the other, it's about which one will be more valuable in a second revolution of America. Speaking of second revolutions...

LdyGuique: Well the revolution didn't get where it was trying to go so in that sense I think it failed. Evidence of this is the overwhelming comeback of 60's 70's mentality in the protest movements today in the USA. While the government as evolved with ideology and technology in their ways to subdue protestors, the protestors or the 'movement' hasn't evolved to be able to succeed in the way their predecessors didn't. Plus there was a culture of a movement back then, today the culture is gone. Maybe this will help, no binding ties as well as more reasons for the govt'. to personally attack the movement (I.E. drugs, sex, hippie stuff)

Nygdan: Yeah I was wrong, it was in the Declaration of Independance...not the constitution. So what, they are equaly valid politically and by law. If you say the words in the Dec. of Ind. cannot justify actions today what are we saying? America is dead?

To all - This is a great thread as long as we all realize we are not debating which one we should have. We are debating about the utilization of our rights in a second revolution and which one will play more importance, the right to bear arms or the right to free speech.

While all my life I have tended to think free speech and was an adoment supporter of our rights to free speech and assemble, I do think that it is time to move on. We need a strategic plan to bring our goverment back into accountability to the people for it's actions abroad and internationally, for it's relationships to corporations and the practices they allow corporations to ensue be it in the national interest of the people or not.

This may involve the destruction of property, the assissnation of individuals, and the fight to the death. However I believe in such a revolt it is possible to threaten arms but in fact to never use them. I believe the U.S. military will have factions that will revolt with the massess. However it is important arms are a right we have in our struggle. A tyrannical government will always say sticks and stones will break their bones but words will never hurt them.

It's times for sticks and stones.