reply to post by xxpigxx
In fact, let me just air my own reservations I have about all this "revolution" talk.
Armed revolution is and can be entirely possible in the United States of America. We have more privately held guns (including my own) than we do
people in this country. The means is not that difficult and doesn't have to be readily explained, as shooting a gun at "something" has turned out
to be relatively easy from my experience.
My biggest concern would be the mayhem that would ensue if this melting pot of ideologies decided to launch some sort of attack. Not only would it be
entirely unfair to most people involved in the "cross fire," but to everyone in this country. This "revolution or "uprising" or whatever the
internet warriors want to call it would be a calamity. Let me give you some main points that differentiate this from our previous revolution.
- No/Ambiguous Enemy
Who are you shooting at? The "Gubmint?" Who's the government? The "shock troops?" You mean our family, friends, and spouses? Any particular
branch of the government or military?
You couldn't possibly answer the question, because not even the man who wrote this article on the "ease" of this whole ordeal has his enemy. Most
people out of ignorance declare themselves "Republican" or "Democrat," though really lying somewhere in the middle. Do those people kill
eachother?
- Ideology
Who's going to "take lead" when this "movement" takes over? Do we restore the constitution and our current process of law and government? How
would you ensure that those offices will be upheld as the one's that came before them turned out disasterous for the people of this republic. Do you
give the huge Marxist/Communist movements their say? The Anarchists? The collective ignorance of the "right wing?" The ever confused "left?" Do we
all get equal representation?
I don't know if you're a fan of history, but if you can understand the chaos that came after the Russian Revolution, you must know that
"restoration" can be more dangerous than "renovation." They say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." But, further more, I would add
"The road to hell is paved without thorough introspection of your good intentions."
- Time/Duration of Conflict
How long before
you and
yours restore our union? If we can take any cues from the civil conflicts in Sri Lanka or even the never-ending
tit for fat in Chechnya, will this go on forever? When is either side content with their compromise? How many innocent people have to die before
y'all figure it out?
Seeing as how there's no enemy, there's no "sides" to this one, and there is no concrete distinctions between the people fighting, when would you
hope to arrive at an "end point?"
- Casualties
Speaking of the death toll. How many people who you would consider "enemy combatants" or even "collaboraters" are just regular innocent men and
women that have no idea what side to take? The news would call an armed uprising "domestic terrorism." People living in the suburbs would believe
you and
yours to the scrutiny that is passed from the government controlled media. Could you kill somebody that "didn't know." Would
they be in the wrong for not adhering to your movements "principles." That sounds a lot like the "fascism" that this movement is fighting, does it
not?
- Perspectives
Okay, so you're out for yours. You're convinced the government is so bad, it's course irreversable, that it has to be "overthrown!" There is no
other way to end the greed, corruption, and oppression. That's
you. What about the tens of millions who are content with what they have? What
about the tens of millions who agree and are relatively okay with the (awful) form democratic representation they currently have. Hell, what about the
tens of millions of people (who I would group myself under) who believe that with good will, unwaivering integrity, and collective bearing that things
can be reversed. Are you or the man who wrote the article going to decide what is right and just?
I once remember a man who called himself "the decider," and I didn't agree with how that whole thing panned out.
- Coercion
You're
afraid of your rights being taken away. You're
afraid of words on a bill that haven't been passed.
YOU ARE AFRAID of
things that go against your will that cannot and probably will not be immediately vetoed, either by the people or the politicians. Instead of doing
your best to make a dignified stance and restoring the integrity of our political body, you subscribe to an armed resistance that's going to be the
silver bullet to restore all the things you're so worked up about. You think the majority of people are going to be okay with thousands of armed men
encroaching on their homes with their families inside? Even if your intentions are pure, could you imagine how
afraid they would be of the
unkonw? How threatened people would be? There's no smiley face pamphlet you could give them to make them swallow the visual of rugged armed men
running through their neighborhoods as they're watching the news about a "domestic insurgency." How do you think that would turn out for your
movement?
Could you then rely on peaceful means to quail the dissent towards you? Could you afford to try? Which side is "better?"
