When is enuf, enuf?

The American colonists of 1775 did not want to rebel against England by about 70%. Only after overtaxation and heavy handed attempts by the Crown to intimidate and confiscate did a minority decide to take up arms. When word of conflict and casualties in Concord and Lexiton spread, so did open resistance. In 1860, only 7 Southern States were ready to seceed from the Union. Despite open conflict in Kansas-Missouri, many remained loyal and hesitant to rebel. But after heavy handed attempts to suppress the rebellion, 4 other states joined along with a majority in 2 other states. My question to you... What will be the trigger that pushes you to open rebellion? What scenario would cause you to take up arms against the US Government? Overtaxation, tyrranical laws, open repression, peace keeping occupation by another country? What would cause you to become a rebel?

When they try to disarm America, or discard and "rewrite" the constitution.

First and foremost, I think we are all rebels at heart. Many of us are too preoccupied to be actively rebellious, but I think most of us have already decided long ago that enough is enough.

The only thing stopping me at this point is myself. I fear that if I made a move I would make a move alone, which would be futile.

* pre-empt Dancing with the Stars
* no sports on tv
* no beer

That's at very least what it will take to get some portion of the Great Unwashed momentarily shaken from their sonambulistic state.

I do not advocate armed resistance (in case anybody is reading).

When people start spelling things with Orwellian stupidity...

seriously how can you write so eloquently but you spelled 'enough' like a moron in the title... I thought this was going to be a thread about people with annoying spelling habits.

Long as we're comfortable we're not changing anything! Take away the starbucks and twitter though

Lol, good thread... I feel a large/national rebellion/civil war will occur once most people are personally effected (spellin??) and their personal comforts/priviliges are taken away will they want to do something. That seems the style of humans; it's OK if you're starving, being forced to pay high taxes, and are enslaved but the second I become so, or someone I love, THEN it's not OK, THEN it's a problem.... this would all have been avoided if people cared about the hardships of others, for a large-scale effort would've been initiated when OTHER people started having problems, instead of waiting for it to become a large, uncontrollable, seemingly impossible problem.... when they say we are responsible, it's an understatement. If only we loved eachother, then change would've occured LONG ago...

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
When they try to disarm America, or discard and "rewrite" the constitution.

I honestly could not stop snickering after I read that. So are you now gunning down the fed?

reply to post by AlreadyGone

From my South African perspective, when the politicians sweep up black mobs to take our property and massacre whites Rwanda style. Hopefully it's paranoia, but who knows what happens post-2010 (Fifa world-cup), or when Mandela dies?

When we lose our internet freedom. Lots of countries are having to vote stupid laws made by brain dead old politicians who dont understand the internet but want to regulate it in some stupid way because they afraid of it or something.

Armed Resistance or Civil War in todays society will not end well at all. Think about it with your examples that you posted .. 1775 - There was no police presence, FBI, CIA, US Marshals, Texas Rangers, or U.S. Military. Plus, the situation was different .. Americans were taking up arms against England, of course they're going to have American support.

You're talking about Americans taking up arms against Americans.
You're talking about waging war against the biggest military force in the world .. PLUS all of the other Law Enforcement Factions that I mentioned above.

That scenario is TOTALLY different than 1775.

Let's face it, and I'm being honest, people have become too compliant in our country. Yeah, they'll sit at the coffee shops and bitch and moan about higher taxes, lower wages, no jobs, no money, no freedoms and they may even talk about a "good ol' fashion civil war" .. But the truth is .. They're going to sit there, finish their pie and coffee, and then go home just so they can get up and do the same thing day after day after day.

Same situation on ATS .. People will always make these threads. Talk about what they're sick of and how the government is givin it to em with no lotion and how they want to do something. And other people will join in and agree and everyone will get worked up into a harmless froth about how they're going to change the world and punish the governments ... But just like the poor bastard in the coffee shop ... You'll finish your pie and coffee and get the next day to do it all over again and again and again.

Edit to add:
If you want to make a change in this country, get out and vote. If you're one of these people that say "I don't vote because they're going to do what they want anyway" .. Then you've got nothing to bitch about.
If you want to make a difference, Run For Office in your community. Give yourself a public platform to stand up and have the voice to make changes.
That's what I'm doing. Running for election for a public office in my town. I don't agree with what's going on, so I'm stepping up to try to change it. It's a small platform to start, but I plan on using it as a stepping stone to larger platforms. Commissioner to Mayor. Mayor to State Rep/Senator/Governor of Texas .. and from there .. Who Knows?

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Detailed Perfection]

Thanks for your responses... I love the input of smart and even opposing views. Here is a solid example of what I feel may push me to action, however belatedly.... The Dept of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Admin. may soon force all animal and livestock owners to tag their animals with RFID chips, one chicken or one thousand...two pigs or two thousand, doesn't matter. Agents of said agencys can also come on your property without search warrants or your permission and inspect your farm or homestead. Further, they can seize and/or destroy livestock and facilities not tagged. If I came home and found some agents killing my livestock on my farm, or threatening me without just cause or provocation or destroying my barn and pens and seizing animals,...well, I would go off. Let the revolution begin....

There's some striking differences between the Americans of the Civil War, the Colonists, and us.

1. Their water was pure and untainted with artificial medications

2. There was no such thing as a prescription pill

3. There was no television

4. There was no 24 hour news cycle

5. Every creature comfort wasn't available around the corner at the local Wal-Mart

Remove items 1-5 and you'll have your upheaval. Until then, I doubt any kind of revolution/war like the previous ones on American soil will ever happen.

reply to post by Detailed Perfection


check out Oath Keepers its all Military, Ex-Military, Firefighters, and Police and they spread the word throughout the branches hard. Serving the constitution not the corrupt gov.

oathkeepers.org...






[edit on 17-12-2009 by OpTiMuS_PrImE]

The issue of the Department of Agriculture seizing private property without any warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction is just one example of a federal and even in some states, administrative agencies gone wild. A term many administrative agencies, particularly the federal ones, love to use is:

Sovereign immunity:

an exemption that precludes bringing a suit against the sovereign government without the government's consent.

This is a legal term used by rogue administrative agency officials in an attempt to confound the people they are illegally confiscating property from. An official only has sovereign immunity if that official is operating within the scope of their jurisdiction. While almost all officials of administrative agencies will claim to have proper jurisdiction, it is not enough to simply make the claim. If that jurisdiction has been properly challenged, the official claiming to have it must prove by showing on record they have it. If they can not prove jurisdiction then the ONLY authority they have is to dismiss or drop the case they are attempting to pursue.

Of course, challenging jurisdiction can be easier said than done. Too many public officials in so many different titles have become so comfortable with ignoring Constitutional constraints that when someone actually has the audacity to challenge their legal authority they are all too often laughed at and dismissed as a "crackpot" or more recently labeled a "homegrown terrorist". Not labeled a terrorist because of any violent action but labeled so because of a reliance upon the rule of law.

Administrative agencies come in various forms. An example of an administrative agency outside of the Department of Agriculture would be the various police forces across the country. These police forces are not law enforcement departments set up by Constitution like the Sheriff's department who is an elected official by the voters of that county, a police department has no elected official and as such is not accountable to the people directly but instead accountable to the city that hired them. Many police officers across the country have become too comfortable in arresting people for simply challenging their authority. They claim to have the right to do so because that challenge can be construed as "violence" and "assault".

Ironically, it is rare that when a police officer arrests someone who has proper challenged the jurisdiction that they will actually press charges against them. The reason being that often times that police officer has reacted out of fear and in the heat of the moment has gone beyond the scope of their jurisdiction and relied upon thuggery and bullying tactics to assert an authority that is non existent. When the heat of passion calms down and reasonable minds prevail, that police officer will more times than not understand their mistake and back off. If they don't realize their mistake it is rare to find an instance where a prosecutor will back the charge and go to court.

If the prosecutor is foolish enough to back a police officer who had no proper jurisdiction then that prosecutor is also acting without proper jurisdiction and in this instance it is rare that a judge will back the prosecution and allow the case to go to trial. If a judge is foolish enough to back the prosecutor who lacks proper jurisdiction because that prosecutor backed a police officer who lacked proper jurisdiction, then that judge also lacks proper jurisdiction and it is rare upon appeal that a higher court will back the judge who lacked proper jurisdiction. If the higher court is actually foolish enough to back that judge who lacked proper jurisdiction, (which is extremely rare), then it is almost certain that when the case arrives before the Supreme Court, (and a case such as this is more than likely to obtain a hearing from SCOTUS), they will side with the person who challenged jurisdiction to begin with.

I am taking the time to describe this process to point out that in the United States, there does exist a legal process by which people who have their rights abrogated and derogated can petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is a process that works and not a single shot need be fired in order to have justice put in. There are numerous instances of case law where everyday people took either the government to court or took the officials acting under color of law to court and sued them as private citizens not protected by their official position because they acted outside of the scope of their jurisdiction.

As to your issues with the Department of Agriculture, study up on the case laws that exist in your own state and any relevant Supreme Court rulings on the matter. I believe you will discover that you have many avenues of peaceful means available to you, before having to turn to violence. Of course, if thieves are on your property stealing your property and can show no just cause to be there and are not offering any fair and just compensation for the taking of your property then self defense is certainly a just cause. However, such an action can all too often lead to very tragic circumstances for all parties involved and this is why there has been a court system put in place in an attempt to ensure domestic tranquility.

The State of Nevada, as just one example, as a long and rich history where the state and the people in it have successfully challenged the overarching actions of the federal government. In 2005, for example, a property rights group claimed a certain amount of victory when they persuaded a grand jury to look into the matter of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management seizing cattle without a warrant or proper jurisdiction. In the end, the grand jury declined to indict anyone in this matter, but the BLM was forced to deal with the people and the state that had recently passed legislation demanding the BLM first obtain a warrant from a proper court of jurisdiction before seizing property.

In an article put out by the Associated Press and written by Sandra Chereb on 09-11-2005, the BLM was rather petulant and continued to claim it had sovereign immunity and challenged the legislation passed by the legislature of Nevada and both the BLM and members of the property rights group and of the Nevada Live Stock Association seemed to all agree the matter would have to be settled in a court of law.

Continued...

Continuing...

I have spent the last hour attempting to find news that follows up on this story but have not been successful. That there is not at least one or two articles easily Googled and that there is no Wikepedia article declaring victory by the BLM, (as that "tax exempt" organization loves to write articles about how the government has plenty authority to steal your property), suggests that the issue was settled and that the BLM, despite all their huffing and puffing and pounding of chests, backed off.

Another very important case in Nevada is Hage v United States which was the culmination of 17 long years of legal battling between a Nevada rancher and the U.S. Forestry Service over water as private property. The end result was a victory for Hage where U.S. Court of Federal Claims, ruled in favor of Jean Nicholas Hage to the tune of 4.2 million dollars in compensation and 17 years of interest and legal fees that in all totaled approximately 12 and a half million dollars. This is yet another example of case law that you won't find in Wikepedia, in spite of the profound precedent that was set by this case.

There is no doubt a large contingent of people in the U.S. who endeavor mightily to convince the people that they have no power and are helpless against the government they ordained. It is just not true and those who know the law, as it is presumed all of us do, will more times than not find that the rule of law is still respected and honored by many judges across this country. Using the sacred halls of justice as a battlefield means much less blood is spilled than if we were to turn to guns and turn our lands into a blood drenched graveyard filled with patriots. Perhaps someday we may have to turn to violence to reign in our petulant government, but today is not that day and you can use the courts to stop any criminal actions being pushed by the Department of Agriculture.

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

[edit on 18-12-2009 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]