When is armed revolution warranted?

Thought experiment / Serious question



Obviously the Sons of Liberty and Continental Congress had their answer. I'm wondering what the modern threshold looks like.

Some will make the case I'm sure, now as in any era in history, that it would look like today and list off a few of minor political grievances. I'm more interested in specific steps (think bulleted list) you think would or could provoke a "justified" armed insurrection against the US government in precisely the terms our forefathers took arms against the British.

Constitutional scholars argue that establishing the permanence of the possibility of armed revolt was of paramount importance to the founding principles of our nation. The astronomical disparity in weapons and tactics between civilians and military aside, I think keeping the question open for consideration remains prescient. Especially with all this talk of hope and change afoot.

What hypothetical would it take for you or other rational people to throw on a beret, bust out the Jolly Roger, and go revolutionary against Uncle Sam?

Taxes>50%?

Total loss of 1st Amendment rights?

100% Open Borders?

Widespread use of military weapons and tactics against American citizens?

Public confession to 9/11 conspiracy?

Anything at all?

By the way, in case you were curious, I researched this before hand. This is entirely protected speech.

Now I want answers!

[Posted on the Anonymous /b/ section of 4chan.org TWICE earlier today and was deleted by mods, hoping THIS forum respects free speech]

[edit on 9-3-2008 by TheBlackPyramid]

The loss of any one of the origional bill of rights would constitute a breach.
The oath of office for all fed officals contain the words."to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies forgien and domestic"The loss of any of our constitional rights by the hand of any Government offical elected or appointed would be TREASON.Treason is a hanging offense!
So in answer to your query,yes I would take up arms if our Constitutional rights were usurped.As a citizen we are required to do just that!

Armed Revolution was warranted in 1913 with the passing of the federal reserve act IMHO. No one has grown a pair large enough yet I'm afraid.

The question is what would it take NOW.

Not a hundred years ago.

What would it take?

If you woke up and found out that you couldn't listen to your iPod on the way to work by government decree, could no longer speak about anything unrelated to work and basic survival functions, and would no longer be able to enjoy a drink when you got home tomorrow...would that be enough?

I'm looking for a set of steps, not an analysis on the likelihood or efficacy of such a revolution.

I'd answer this right now but i think there's something in the

T&C rules about this type of thread.

So i wont answer NOW.

I'll answer tomorrow.

Or maybe next week.

Armed Insurrection against the US Government, NOW huh? What would it take you ask? The answer is simple. It would take a ungodly, moronic fool with a death wish.

What the hell kind of post is this anyway? Trolling for poor saps are we? Did your research you say, HA! This isn’t Rwanda or Liberia hoss. You might think that George Bush is a dictator, but you’re damn wrong.

What we have here is a democracy smart guy. We aren’t under the yoke of the King of England anymore. Since you have “supposedly” done your research you would have understood from the get-go that your question is completely flawed and without logic.

This leaves the only conclusion that your question is only a bait tactic to lure some poor redneck into spouting of a tantrum against the government. What? Homeland Security doesn’t all ready have enough people to watch these days? Need some poor redneck to be the fall guy for your latest “We Got Em” campaign?

Is it past time that the government acted like it stopped another major terrorist incident here in the US? Are you looking for some poor patsy to play anti government vigilante for you so you can look good to “The MAN”?

No one wants to start a revolution here pal so go take your trolling crap somewhere else. Humph, I guess they don’t pay our government boys enough these days to catch the real terrorists so they have to trump up some patsies on the forums to look good for the public.

Sad, Sad, Sad

I'm going to have to disagree with Hot_Wings on this. I think it is a valid discussion.

The question I see is, in today's society, in the time of Patriot Act and Homeland Security, how many rights (and which) would we have to feel are infringed to cause people to have no other alternative but to take physical action? Perhaps it wouldn't be rights but money, taxes or fees, perhaps on essentials like having children etc.

I personally don't know..I think it would take innocent civilian americans getting killed by the government trying to force the loss of rights/taxes etc to even start it. You see people today being condition to just accept getting things taken from them and killed.

Take for instance schools. I knew someone whos kid was getting picked on and one bully decided to beat him up..he fought back, both got suspended. School policy was, 2 fights and you have to go to another school. Well, time goes by and another bully starts a fight with the kid, he doesn't even fight back. BUT, since he was involved in the fight (victim) and a second offense, he had to leave. They encourage people not to defend themselves. Same thing with all the university shootings. You never hear of students in these large classes charging the guy plucking off cowering students one-by-one. Americans have either lost or been conditioned out of their fighting spirit.

Which makes the question so interesting. Perhaps people would not try fighting back until they are walking in shackles around labor camps. By then, it's too late.

For there to be armed conflict other than covert bombings attacks, the government would have to instill a sense of seperation from the citizens and the police/army fighting on its behalf. As it stands, cops and soldiers are all citizens with husbands and wives and moms and dads and if they are all sharing the same loss of rights/money, they will not be easily encouraged to kill or control on behalf of a government. I don't know what would make them feel a seperation far enough to be ok with doing that.

Situations, and technology make things so complex now, an offensive armed conflict would be next to impossible to pull off. Most likely, any conflict between civilians and the government will come from citizens defending their land from government coming to impose its taxes or ensuring citizens aren't trying to use their 'rights.'

Hot_Wings, I don't believe this thread is enciting a new revolution, and if it were a covert government way to try and find 'terrorists' then incarcerating someone for having an open and educated discussion on pre-revolutionary events and theory, not the 'how-to', then that loss of 1st Ammendment Rights might bring about the very thing 'they' would be trying to stop.



[edit on 10-3-2008 by Wolf321]

I'd say never, at least not for the next 100 years.

See, revolutions have a disturbing tendency of being subverted. Think of what an unpleasant surprise the Russians were in for after the 1917 revolution, when they wound up with scumbag rulers even worse than the Tsars!

reply to post by chromatico


True. The problem is leaders have to be of a certain calliber, and to that extent, as does the society they lead. The captain of a ship can be the best in the world, but if the crew chooses not to work the ship goes no where. Our society (America) and even on a global scale, is not capable of suctaining the conceptual government the founding fathers envisioned. Hence, the Republic and not ture democracy. They know uneducated or unprincipled peoples can and will eventually vote themselves into bondage. The idea is, selected groups of thinking principled peoples chosen make the decisions. The problems eventually becomes thinking unprincipled people manipulate the system. Hence the old rundownd by ALexander Tytler:
1) From Bondage to spiritual faith;
2) From spiritual faith to great courage;
3) From courage to liberty;
4) From liberty to abundance;
5) From abundance to complacency;
6) From complacency to apathy;
7) From apathy to dependence;
8) From dependence back into bondage.

I think we are just about in stage 6. If you follow a demacratic view of the US which favors more government influence, it could easily come that citizens enter the dependency state. Then, game over.

The one consolation is that eventually...we will be free again.

reply to post by chromatico


Or the American Revolution, which wound up with Bush as a president.

Clearly great motives don't make for a great product.

reply to post by dave420


I think that's disingenuous...how are events 200+years apart supposed to be directly connected? Nevertheless, most revolutions worldwide have wound up with negative results.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by chromatico]

I'm not trying to incite a revolution. In fact, the implication of the thread is that such things are the products of larger factors than conspiracy theorists on message boards.

I think Wolf321 appreciates the idea here.

Are there specific precursors that would define a "last straw?"

If so, what are they?

I think much political mess is made when citizens prefer to rely on their 2nd Amendment rights to defend the Constitution, when ignoring the 1st and more powerful one protecting their right to communicate their grievances and boundaries to their leaders before any such line is crossed.

As awful as things may be today, we've still got plenty of peaceful methods worth trying. Popular amendments, strikes, widespread civil disobedience, and a First Amendment that I'd defend with my last gasp of nitrogen soup.

But then, things aren't that awful. That's why this is a thought experiment.

I'm wondering from some of the timidity here if people actually have a static answer to this question. In history, nations with large young, male populations (usually jobless) that have teardrop-shaped income and wealth distributions, when food is scarce, tend to crumble from within or go to war.

Is it as simple as that today?

Could principle actually motivate anyone today, or would it be the window dressing?

[edit on 10-3-2008 by TheBlackPyramid]

Originally posted by TheBlackPyramid
The question is what would it take NOW.

isnt the more important question whom you will take it to?

(For DHS) I still advocate the Mahatma approach.

Originally posted by downtown436
Armed Revolution was warranted in 1913 with the passing of the federal reserve act IMHO. No one has grown a pair large enough yet I'm afraid.

DownTown,

What you say is 99.9% true.



.., always bet on black!

A succesful armed revolt simply can't happen for the most part. They could tax us 70% our wages and no one will be able to anything. The main reason is because of how people choose to live these days. Most of our population lives in big citys that are totally unsustainable without constant in-pouring of goods and food. 100-200 years ago most people lived on farms as well as hunted or trapped. While a small portion of people still do this, there simply isn't enough for proper armed revolt.

If you sent the average city slicker out of the city with a gun and a pack, he/she wouldn't know what to do. living off the land for most people is not a skill they have the foggiest about. If you live in a big city you can really only stockpile foods, and maybe start a roof garden. This would lead to alot of deaths in the major citys, because an armed revolt would need to cut off supplys to any area with large goverment control. People would not just go to work like nothing is happening to keep the system rolling.

By living in a big city, most people have signed there life over to the goverment and the goverments whims. Remember hurricane Katrina, no one in that city could survive without goverment assistance. They had no real world skills, so they pleaded for assistance or died pleading.

If people are to stupid to learn how to live and sustain themselves through hunting, faming,fishing, ect....just how do you expect an armed revolt to go?

Also, most citizens don't own a rifle, they just let cops do(or not do) all the work. However that rifle can also become an emergency food machine in a manner of speaking. When our fore father revolted, every man and some women ALL had rifles as a bare minimum. They KNEW how to live off the land. And, they could travel using compass' on or off trail. A revolt cannot be succesful with a few farmers and survivalists, and possibly some mixture of army vets/current enlisted.

It takes a prepared population, which we DON'T HAVE.

Even if we revolt, the "domestic terrorist" phrase will be thrown about, and all the weak link citizens will have no choice but to accept it, even if they belive the revolt is just. Thier familys will starve because they are so ill prepared.

I think any attempt to remove second amendment rights would have a fairly large cross section of people willing to revolt. If that didn't cause any form of revolution, then not much would until it's entirely to late.

"The peasants are revolting!" "They've always been revolting, now they're rebelling."

I don't know if taking away the 2nd amendment right would cause people to attack the government. But I do see them willing to defend their rights if the government came to take their guns away.

The best the government might do is stop the sale of firearms, but that would just stop law abiding citizens from getting them. But I supposed that is better for them then nothing, eventually fewer people would have them, and those that obtain them illegally are likely to use them in a crime and would be killed/capture and weapons destroyed.

Rumor has it that on March 18, the US Supreme Court is going to look into that pesky 2nd Ammendment to see if private citizens have the right to own a firearm.

Myself, I have paid quite a bit into Social Security and every statement letter I recieve from the SSA says in paragraph 2, don't expect the stated amounts to be there when you retire. Nevermind the fact that my retirement benefits are significantly lower than current recipents today. In fact they would barely pay my current rent, 30 years from now they definately will not.

A president upsuping power without extreme justification. The senerio that a few dread that W. will try to pull later this fall

Total economic colapse and the gov't shruging their shoulders.

Other justifiable means not yet imagined, eventhough I can imagine quite a lot. There are different things that could happen such as NWO type group making a powerplay, hostile invasion and gov't surrenders, or other fantastic situations.

I think it would be at the point where you decide your government is not your government but your enemy. If everything you hold dear is taking from you.

If you look at incidental shootings at government officials or violence towards government agencies than you see what will drive people to the point that they feel they can only resort to violence.

I can not say that I know for sure an armed revolution is going to come in the U.S. but my gut feeling says it will. Governments can only toy with their people for a certain time... at one point people will decide it's enough. I just hope in this case they will remember that citizen victims are the worst thing in a war. It's killing your brothers and sisters.

The title of this thread should be:

Homeland Security Check List

Anyone that proposes armed revolution will be added to their database.

It's like asking: When is it OK to assasinate the President?

Talk about that out loud at McDonalds and the SS will knock on your door.