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.

 

Talk of Armed Revolution on ATS Inappropriate

page: 21
61
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CharlesMartel
If you want to revolt, I recommend you follow the example of people of East Germany and Czechoslovakia when they opened their borders just over 20 years ago. On thing they read was Romans 13 which was written when the Roman Empire was much more hostile to Christians than East Germany and Czechoslovakia were.

I don't think that bringing up Romans 13 has any real bearing on the situation in the USA; For one thing, the US government was not created by God, it was created by the People...
Excerpted from the Preamble:

We the People of the United States... ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And excerpted from the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

And the course of history also shows that no government can continue when bereft of the support & forbearance of the people being governed. Both the NIV & the original King James Bibles were heavily biased in favor of the "divine right to rule" concept & were commissioned by the very same people that had a stake in perpetuating this concept. It's impossible to actually take the Bible into consideration when trying to guide a government, because you first have to decide the big question...Which version of the Bible should we follow? No government can even be created without the will of the People to create it...God's Laws are evident in the Laws of Nature & all life on the planet are subject to these Laws.

The foundations of the USA & its government were created by Men, but they firmly held to the Laws of Nature in founding the government. All of the original documents that led to the founding of the USA were based upon upholding Common Law as the Supreme Law of the Land...And Common Law is the same as Natural Law; These two terms are identical in concept & meaning. Whenever the Supreme Court has made a judgment based upon Common Law & clarified certain aspects of it, they're very often calling them "Positive Law" or "Natural Law," or even "by Natural Extension." As can be seen from the founding documents & the course of history, the concept of "divine right to rule" has no foundation in reality or the Laws of Nature.

Also, you must remember that the US government, as it operates today, is nothing like the government as it was founded & while it still adhered to the Constitution. Once the government drifted far enough away from the founding roots, that's when all aspects of life in America became degraded. So, as it has been already pointed out that the Declaration of Indepedence is included as part of the Supreme Law, here's another excerpt that confirms the Laws of Nature, the Natural Law & denies the concept of "divine right to rule:"

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



Originally posted by moonzoo7
The wolves are constantly outside our door, and more frequently as of late they make their way into the house. What are we to do? Assassinate our leaders and then, with no other recourse, turn on ourselves? Really? Then appoint our "Might Makes Right" brothers and sisters as our new masters? Is this scenario realistic?

Well, it's too realistic, when comparing it to the usual tide of history...When a revolution becomes violent, it usually goes like that. But then again, there's plenty of signs of non-violent revolution going on, right now. People are (with some exceptions) holding peaceful protests (which are being ignored by both the government & most of the MSM), root-core Constitutional issues have been hitting the Supreme Court for the past decade or so & States are re-asserting their rights to nullify unconstitutional acts by the Feds. Also are numerous political activist groups working on it & even some of our own Senators & Representatives speaking out against the corruption that's been rampant.


Originally posted by moonzoo7
A member who goes by the name Minigunner stated in this thread that he may not personally like or approve of the policies of his Commander In Chief, but he has sworn an oath to protect and serve his country and it's duly-elected leader(s).

Two points about the Oath of Office that seems to be getting ignored here:
#1: It also includes the phrase "defend & uphold the Constitution."
#2: Also included is "obey all lawful orders" by superior officers.
What needs to be pointed out that, if those orders are not within the scope of the Constitution, then the Oath-bound Officer receiving those orders are duty-bound to disobey any unlawful orders! There's a growing number in the military that are doing just that right now, officers & enlisted alike.


Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


All you seem to talk about is a revolution that's going to throw away the Constitution, not restore it. Have you really been ignoring what's been said all this time?


I haven't been ignoring it, I just don't believe it. I do believe that a right wing revolution in this country would completely destroy the constitution. This is evidenced by endisnighe's posts here, and here

I notice that you merely picked one person's opinions & still ignore the majority of others who speak otherwise. For another example of the the peaceful restoration of the Constitution, check out the CC 2009, which is getting an increasing amount of support. In their Articles of Freedom, they make a big point about not initiating violent revolution AND restoring the Constitution, not amending it. By citing only one example, you still display the tendency to ignore everything else & ascribe that one opinion to be "universal" rather than individual.

And even when you bring out the "general welfare" clause from the Preamble, you still think of that as a "universal directive," not a general statement...The specifics of what the government can * cannot do are contained within the rest of the Constitution. Again, you take one statement & blow it up into a "universal" proportion. Even though you also point out the "general welfare" included in Article 1, Section 8, that does not give any directive to violate the rest of the Constitution in any way, means, shape or form; Each part must be taken in context with the rest of it, on the whole. This is exactly the very same way that the criminals in government try to use the Constitution against us instead of obeying it as per their Oath of Office.

In essence, the "revolution" itself is already underway & there is lots of evidence that, as long as it remains peaceful, progress is being made. But it takes time...After all, the corruption has been gradually gaining ground for well over 100 years & it can't be rooted out "overnight" without dire consequences to the People & the nation as a whole. To be certain, "haste makes waste" is very appropriate in this situation & it seems that "cooler heads" are prevailing.


Originally posted by whatukno
I work, I pay taxes, I pay into both social security and medicare. Are any of you going to tell me that when you decide to take over the government that the money I invested will be taken from me?

Both of those socialist programs were instituted as Ponzi scams (not "insurance" of any kind) & they were never administrated any differently from being a scam. In case you haven't realized it yet, the Social Security fund has already been long-spent & holds nothing but Congressional IOU's; The taxes they take from you all go to paying the interest on the Federal Reserve loans, not for "general welfare." There's no need to despair over it, because the Law does provide a way for the scammers to be held responsible for reparations. If cooler heads (ie: the peaceful revolution) continue to prevail, the Due Process of Law will be followed. That's the key to the peaceful revolution...Enforcing the Due Process of Law so that the nation can prosper again, instead of being on the fast track to ruin.

-----------------Concluded Below---------------




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
------------Concluded From Above-----------


Originally posted by whatukno
I do worry that if the extreme right start a civil war in this country those that they deem "not a contributing member of society" will end up as slaves to those that the extreme right feel worthy. Given endisnighe's replacement of the 13th Amendment in his manifesto linked above. That is exactly what will happen.

For one thing, the preponderance of evidence so far is that the 13th Amendment we see today already is the replacement, but even should the original 13th Amendment be brought into enforcement, it has nothing to do with the civilian population that isn't already in the government or seeks to get into the government. I do agree that you have cause to worry about the repercussions of a civil war...You'd be insane not to be worried about it. But what about the worry concerning the current path our country is on? Do you worry what it's going to be like if it's not changed in a positive manner? I sure as hell do.

From other statements you make (especially considering the first part of your statement), it seems to me that you're referring to the "extreme right" as is currently is, but that's not what it means to be on the "right." A true Conservative (on the Right) is the political force that keeps the Constitution "as is," resisting change in it; Liberal (on the Left) is the political force that's supposed to seek changes/Amendments that expand Rights & liberties. The current practice of the "right" is to maintain the "status quo" as it stands, regardless of the Constitution or obedience to it. The current "left" seeks to chain the whole public into being responsible to the few who aren't responsible for themselves. This is how far the corruption has gone...To actually twist the core-concepts of the political parties against the People; This twisting has even gone so far as to cause many members in Congress to continually "jump the fence" in their professed affiliations or even step down from Office.

reply to post by whatukno
 

You even misread what he writes, even after quoting it...All he's saying that if it was thrown out by illegal means, then it should be restored to it's lawful place. You've got a bad habit of putting your words into other peoples' mouths. Too self-opinionated to even see what's right in front of your eyes. He's not calling for the return of slavery ("overwriting" the current 13th Amendment, like you assume), but to just put things in their proper order. That's how you Deny Ignorance?



Originally posted by Fromabove
Now, while treason is a crime. calling for the abolishment of a government that is oppressive in nature and no longer by and for the people is not.

In fact, the Constitution itself includes the definition of Treason, as it pertains to the Supreme Law of the Land & a nation under Rule of Law:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court

Well, well, well...Notice that the government itself is not included as to what would constitute being a victim of Treason! With the Patriot Act, the Government has declared War on the People...The Federal Reserve is becoming more & more realized that it's one of our enemies & the government continues to "Aid & Comfort" it against us...And even in the MSM, there are a countless number of examples of Testimony against Federal actions against the People. By Natural Extension of the Law, would that mean that anyone who supports & aids a government that acts against the People would also be considered Treasonous? You betcha' it does!


Originally posted by Kaploink
As you can see, attempting to organize such groups is considered illegal.



18 U.S.C. § 2385 : US Code - Section 2385: Advocating overthrow of Government

Etc, etc, the whole quote from External Source...
Codes carry a lesser weight under the Law than does the Constitution itself...The Constitution is Law & only the Laws of Nature as Set Forth by the Creator are superior to the Constitution; That much is explicit. That's why they're called Codes & not called Laws. Statutes, Regulations, Ordinances, etc...None of them is equal to Law.


Originally posted by billyjack
Is ACORN going to count the votes or will there be a crisis to postpone the 2010 election?

Even though there's been proof of ACORN's activities in vote-frauding, Obama even announced that he's going to continue supporting it...How's that for a "President" who pays nothing more than lip-service to the Rule of Law? Especially since he still refuses to provide proof-positive evidence (& even had such evidence sealed against any examination) of his qualifications to sit in the Oval Office. After all, it would only require showing his long-form Birth Certificate to settle the matter, but that's exactly what he won't do. Without that proof of qualification, he's nothing more than a criminal impostor to the President's Office!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 



I notice that you merely picked one person's opinions & still ignore the majority of others who speak otherwise. For another example of the the peaceful restoration of the Constitution, check out the CC 2009, which is getting an increasing amount of support. In their Articles of Freedom, they make a big point about not initiating violent revolution AND restoring the Constitution, not amending it. By citing only one example, you still display the tendency to ignore everything else & ascribe that one opinion to be "universal" rather than individual.


It is amazing how much damage one person can inflict over a society. Jonestown comes to mind immediately. I haven't ignored those that would seek to change this government through constitutional means. I agree with that approach. If one wants to change this government, elect people that will follow your values and what it means to you to be American and what freedom means. I am all for that. Although I still may not vote for that candidate based on his stance on the issues, which may differ than mine.

What I am against and must speak out against are those that would use violence supported flimsily by the Declaration of Independence to usurp a constitutionally elected government body for the purpose of complete change and destruction of that same Constitution.


Both of those socialist programs were instituted as Ponzi scams (not "insurance" of any kind) & they were never administrated any differently from being a scam. In case you haven't realized it yet, the Social Security fund has already been long-spent & holds nothing but Congressional IOU's;


Unlike IOU's from say your cousin Larry, these IOU's come in the form of a Warrant on the Treasury.

(Now before anyone jumps on that and starts ranting and raving that there is no way of arresting the treasury department, these aren't arrest warrants, these are checks. Next time one of you gets a refund check from the IRS please look at it carefully, it states that it is a warrant on the treasury, in the sum of whatever they are giving you.)

The same goes with this investment, I and all of you have made into the Social Security and Medicare systems. Just like a bank does not take your money and put it in a vault, but spend it on investments and debts with a record to you of what you have deposited and the interest on the loan you have made to that bank.

I don't know if you would know this but many local banks are for all intents and purposes "broke" too. They have more liabilities than they do assets. It is quite normal and banks run like this. Making loans and collecting interest while at the same time taking loans from the members in the form of deposits and paying interest on those loans. It is the same with Medicare and Social Security. Sure they are Broke, but as long as they still owe that money they will continue to pay it.


You even misread what he writes, even after quoting it...All he's saying that if it was thrown out by illegal means, then it should be restored to it's lawful place. You've got a bad habit of putting your words into other peoples' mouths. Too self-opinionated to even see what's right in front of your eyes. He's not calling for the return of slavery ("overwriting" the current 13th Amendment, like you assume), but to just put things in their proper order. That's how you Deny Ignorance?


If he meant that, he would have wrote that. Instead he wants to override the 13th amendment and in it's place (with no constitutional authority) a fictitious supposed Original 13th Amendment. I believe he did this purposely and with the exact intention to try and sneak slavery back to being legalized. This is why I pointed it out.

I know most of you don't understand this, (which is apparent by the posts screaming for the return to the Constitution) But our Constitution was never meant to be a static document. It was specifically written so to change over time to fit the needs of a growing United States. It was never meant to be the be all end all of all law, it was and is the foundation of our law and society.

Just like the foundation of your house is not your entire house, the Constitution is not the whole of the law, but the foundation to it.

To those that would change this government through a non violent constitutional means I.E. Electing representatives and presidents that would more closely fit your ideals of what this country should be, I salute and support you. (just don't think I am ignoring you)

To those that see no alternative but to use an armed rebellion to overthrow what you see as an illegal tyrannical government. I do not support you because I cannot support the widespread destruction of this nation through violent means for the purpose of usurping a Constitutionally elected body.

To those who think that a revolution (violent or not) gives them the justification and right to blatantly and unconstitutionally rewrite amendments as you see fit for the purpose of enslaving and punishing your enemies, I do not support you.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by moonzoo7
 


ATS is a conspiracy theory website. Called for an armed revolution is not a subject of conspiracy theory, so it should not exist within the forums. The main topic of a discussion should not be on creating an armed revolution. However, if armed revolution is an implicit opinion or topic of a forum discussion, then it is acceptable, in my opinion, to mention that opinion throughout that discussion, so long as the main topic remains the prevalent subject of that discussion.

Example (fictional) : Forum Topic - Your Opinion on Congress' Decision to make Jibblinism the Only Legal Religion in America.

One could respond, "Heck, it makes me upset. I should be allowed to practice ANY religion I want! Who wants to join my armed revolution to impeach every member of Congres?!"



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I see you are still at it again.

You have to be getting paid to continually misrepresent me.

I have never seen anyone continue to use manipulation and fallacies as you.

You are quite the destructive fellow aren't you?

Divide and conquer huh?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I would think that the so called Shoe Bomber has made a greater impact on society as whole than Jim Jones did...or maybe Nixon and his removal of the Gold Standard of $35/oz.

Funny that you should mention the Declaration of Independence as a tool for justification more so than the Constitutionally elected government. You see those radicals wanted to have appropriate representation to have some voice in the law and policy process that they were subjected to but King George III would not allow the Colonies to have seats in Parliament.

Do you honestly feel that the common man is being duly represented or are corporate and personal investments of the elected receiving the benefit? How many times has actions by Congress been opposed by a majority of the people and done anyway? How many of the elected do not subject themselves to their own actions? By that I mean how many dodge taxes? How exactly does a member of Congress go from having a net worth of $85K to $12.8 million during a single 2 year term? What about those that would do away with parts of the Constitution itself like the so called gun grabbers?

Elect true representatives? Do you honestly believe I have a chance in hell of ever becoming President? I'll tell you right now that on the morning after the inauguration that I would assemble the Congress, march out Pat Nixon holding two reams of blank paper and say "As you know, her husband was the only President to resign from office. Anyone here that isn't going to work for the people may take a sheet of paper from Mrs. Nixon and turn in their resignation by tomorrow morning 10am on my desk and not an ill word will be said." Think I would make it more than six months without an assassination?

I firmly believe that armed conflict is the last desperate actions of desperate men. Unfortunately, I also see far too many good words falling on deaf ears and can therefore see the desperation growing in some. Maybe it is because I am too sympathetic to the people I see around me. Maybe because I have seen too many fail to see their own self-worth evaporate into boring bits of conformity. Or maybe it is because I have seen what quite a few have done with their lives when people believe in them and they have gone on to be celebrities.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Ahabstar
 



Elect true representatives? Do you honestly believe I have a chance in hell of ever becoming President?


Have you tried?



I firmly believe that armed conflict is the last desperate actions of desperate men. Unfortunately, I also see far too many good words falling on deaf ears and can therefore see the desperation growing in some. Maybe it is because I am too sympathetic to the people I see around me. Maybe because I have seen too many fail to see their own self-worth evaporate into boring bits of conformity. Or maybe it is because I have seen what quite a few have done with their lives when people believe in them and they have gone on to be celebrities.


I believe that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. I believe that those that would usurp this Constitutionally Elected government do so because they have no ideas on how to change this government the right way. I feel that these people that advocate violence as the sole and only solution are only doing so because they fear everything about them has changed so much that they are lost in it.

They are devoid of real ideas and so want everything reverted back to the start so that they can feel important again.

It's akin to a kid taking his ball and going home because the other kids are winning the game.

Sure I don't like lobbyists, I do try to talk to my representatives. If I don't get a hold of them. I try again. I try and meet them when they are in state, and I try and call them whenever I have an issue. I have talked with a few of them in person, and I guarantee they at least know who I am.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Would you at least admit that the Founders left armed revolt as an option to the People, if all peaceable means fail? If not, then I have some quotes that I believe will change your opinion...

TheBorg



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I also admit that the Constitution is not an infallible document as originally written nor as it stands today. I still debate whether it was wiser to let Senators to be appointed by the States as opposed to the general direct election of today. In some aspects, the power of the individuals and of the States are strong by appointment.

While I also see the wisdom of only 1/3 of the House up for election for the continuity of the Federal Government, I also see it as a gateway for corruption and abuse as in the remaining 2/3 can stand as an "old guard" to the way things are done. Effectively removing the power of the vote of the People for a change.

As for my running, would you endorse a candidate that has never been elected to so much as a dog catcher? So much is made of a person's experience as a qualification. Yet no newly elected first term President has ever held the office. It is an on the job training situation. More refreshing than seeing a candidate that was truly of the People and wholly for the People would be a compromise of having one that can see the other side of the coin, or at the very least the ability to see beyond themselves and their own ego (which does cover far more than the current administration).

And if violence is the mark of incompetence, this country was founded and nurtured by some of the most incompetent people of history. Therefore making your support of this country quite the contradiction. Those people commonly stood out in a field or street and shot at each with full intent to kill on the slightest besmirch to their character and integrity.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBorg
 



Would you at least admit that the Founders left armed revolt as an option to the People, if all peaceable means fail? If not, then I have some quotes that I believe will change your opinion


If all possible peaceable means fail (which would mean that those who tried those means were wholly incompetent to begin with) Yes, obviously armed revolt would be an option to the people.

reply to post by Ahabstar
 



As for my running, would you endorse a candidate that has never been elected to so much as a dog catcher? So much is made of a person's experience as a qualification. Yet no newly elected first term President has ever held the office. It is an on the job training situation.


Think nationally, act locally. How does one get experience? By being elected as a dog catcher, work your way up remembering what your goal is.

Why does it have to be POTUS right of the bat? Why not smaller first, get that experience, then move up in elections from there. Do a good job and you will have the base of support to grow.


And if violence is the mark of incompetence, this country was founded and nurtured by some of the most incompetent people of history. Therefore making your support of this country quite the contradiction. Those people commonly stood out in a field or street and shot at each with full intent to kill on the slightest besmirch to their character and integrity.


Indeed it was. But, even the incompetent can sometimes through folly create great things.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Why POTUS right off the bat? A basis of proof of non-corruption. Far too often the candidates are the results of long careers of being a politician and nothing more than a politician that was flush with the political capitol of trading favors for favors in order to have themselves written into the history books.

Hilary could have been one of the few exceptions to the norm of either politician or popular war general, had it not been for that time as Senator of New York. Not that she instilled great amounts of trust with the People as a whole, but it would have been different. Too bad she wasn't ever really "one of the People."



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by moonzoo7
 


I don't believe these "revolutionaries" have the courage of their convictions. I don't think they have convictions. I don't think they even have a clue.
I am upset with the state of our nation, but I do what I can. I mean I vote, I volunteer and I engage in grown-up conversations with people with whom I agree and disagree.
Pay the ignorant no heed. They are harmless.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


"I believe that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. I believe that those that would usurp this Constitutionally Elected government do so because they have no ideas on how to change this government the right way. I feel that these people that advocate violence as the sole and only solution are only doing so because they fear everything about them has changed so much that they are lost in it. " Care to expound upon this? I don't actually think changing it the right way is possible any more. Everyone in office, right now, ispart of the problem, and birds of a feather, do tend to stick together.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adifferentbreed
 



Care to expound upon this? I don't actually think changing it the right way is possible any more. Everyone in office, right now, ispart of the problem, and birds of a feather, do tend to stick together.


No, because I have already gone over this several times already. My opinion is stated.

I will leave it at this...

Who's fault is it that these people are in office right now?



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You have to understand who we're talking about here. We're talking about the People, whom find it more entertaining to vote on the next American Idol winner than to vote for the next POTUS, let alone get involved in their local, state, or federal politics.

Now, if voting on bills were as easy as voting for an American Idol, I wonder how people would handle that?!?!?

Makes me wonder why a system like that hasn't come up yet...

TheBorg



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBorg
 




You have to understand who we're talking about here. We're talking about the People, whom find it more entertaining to vote on the next American Idol winner than to vote for the next POTUS, let alone get involved in their local, state, or federal politics.


Well, if that is the case than the people that are angry at the government have seriously misplaced their anger now haven't they?


Now, if voting on bills were as easy as voting for an American Idol, I wonder how people would handle that?!?!?


Well, at first it would be the worst case of voter fraud in world history. Besides the fact that people sitting at home drunk off of their behinds would vote really strangely. Next thing you know ol Wukky is taking the oath of office on January 20.


Makes me wonder why a system like that hasn't come up yet...


Because of the massive amount of voter fraud. Yes, I know it would be funny to elect ol Wukky POTUS, but the next day, while nursing a 5 alarm hangover, the nation would wonder "Why god, why!"

Enrollment in AA would shatter all known records. A massive Exodus to Canada and Mexico would occur, redheads everywhere would run screaming.

Do you see the consequences?

[edit on 1/7/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Should talk of armed revolution be censored? Personally, I think not. However, what I do believe is that revolution will not come in the form of a bullet or execution, yet the revolution we need is in the form of speech itself, of a call for the liberties granted to us by our constitutional rights. We must stand up as a population that will no longer stand for the monopolies of the rich, of a class most of us have never or will never have a chance to know. Revolution will come when we finally decide to stand up and TELL our "leaders" that we have had enough! We have had enough of the unconstitutional actions of those whose job it is to uphold our countries most sacred of documents. We have had enough of fighting wars for the rich and being told it is for the freedom and well being of their people. We have had enough of the lobbyist say in our government and politicians. It is time to find a leader outside the realms of the two party system. It is time for us to choose a leader. It is time for us to come together and kill the hate and fight beside one another, not with guns and riots, but with our morals and our faith. The faith we felt reading of the founding fathers struggling for their freedoms from persecution and tyrannical leaders and corrupt government. Do we have the right to bear arms versus our goverment, our elected officials? Do we have the right to fight with our brothers and sisters in a militia led by the agenda of a corrupt and failing government. Simply, YES!!! But will that be the right way to take hold, will that make the RIGHT impression on what we want of this great nation. I don't think so. But who am I, I am a citizen who votes in elections, who goes to work for the United States government every day, I am a citizen who fights the wars that no one agrees with. I just hope that one day we can come together as a nation of people who want more than the wealth and power of the world. We can come together with one voice and dictate our contries future, with education, peace, and prosperity! Brothers and sisters please spread the message, the way set forth for us is failing. The ones we trust our liberties and essentially our lives with are failing to uphold the very principals we elected them upon. Why live our lives as spectators of history, when we can make history ours! We can change the very world we live in, we must first come together and accept our differences and understand that it itself is what makes the UNITED States so great, a country as diverse as the world its beautiful land is rested upon. From the scholars to the laborers, my friends it is time to take control and make our mark on the world. To come together and accept our weaknesses and know our brothers and sisters will make up for them ten-fold, and give our strengths for the better of one another! We can win this fight and never cast a stone. Our economy, our nation, our government is nothing without us. Remember this is a democracy of the people without which the world could not watch, could not imitate, and could not admire! We will show the world we are more than Hollywood, we are more than the opinions of those given by those chosen to speak for us! We will show them we as a people have not abandoned the desire and drive that made this country what it is today, we will show the world that governments work for them, not the other way around. Remember my words friends, it will not be easy as those we have relinquished power to will not give it back as easily as we gave it, but that in itself shows the greed and self importance of the government we facilitated... But we will take it back!!!! Brothers and Sisters, thank you for the inspiration, thank you for the kindness, and thank you for speaking out on this subject with me! Be safe and talk about this everyday. It is our turns to make history!



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



Well, if that is the case than the people that are angry at the government have seriously misplaced their anger now haven't they?


If you dated a skank that slept around on you, I would not be mad at you even if you knew going in what you were getting yourself into. I would still be mad at her for sleeping around and hurting you.

We may disagree on things but I still respect you as a person.

But when it comes right down to it, I think the country and the people as a whole would be safer with 100 or so disorganized militias of 10 million people fighting a haphazard rebellion than having 50, 000 would be political assassins sneaking around trying to bring about their idea of change from the barrel of a gun.

But on the original question of if such talk in an openly monitored public forum is a good idea or not. I say yes. Because if the grumbling are heard by the right people then they have the opportunity to clean their act up before actions replace words.

It is said that we, as a whole, are about 9 missed meals away from pandemonium at any given time. Telling them to eat cake didn't turn out very well the last time. By letting the government know that they are constantly watched and evaluated will keep them from saying, here you can just lick the bowl.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by Ahabstar]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if this has already been mentioned. My understanding is that "soliciting" is already against the T&C of use of the site. Wouldn't calling for the president's assassination or for revolution in the country constitute soliciting and therefore be forbidden under the Terms and Conditions?

I myself have exhorted people to get more involved in keeping an eye on their congressional representatives, to get involved in the process by which the US is governed and have discussed why a president might be assassinated and who might be interested in doing that, but I have not and do not advocate violence in such matters.

What the OP is talking about would amount to a very narrowly focused type of exhortation and would amount to a type of solicitation which is against the rules, I believe. My 2 cents worth.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Actually, so long as the topic is kept in the realms of speculation, then there isn't any problem with it. The problems reside in calling upon members, taking this topic for example, to rise up, grab their guns, and meet somewhere at a predetermined time. That's not happening in this thread. What's happening here is the discussion of the topic itself, and if the option should be allowed here on ATS.

I, for one, believe that it's inherent that we talk about it here, as it's becoming ever more obvious that the backroom dealings on our Capitol Hill are rendering the US citizens into despots.

Merely my take, as always...

TheBorg

[edit on 7-1-2010 by TheBorg]



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join