Talk of Armed Revolution on ATS Inappropriate

reply to post by whatukno


My friend, while I agree with you wholeheartedly that there are too many people recklessly calling for armed revolution in a time when too much can be done through peaceful solutions, it is always so frustrating to read your answer, always the same and essentially the only answer you offer, which is to vote better.

It appears that you think voting is all the People can do in order to reign in an out of control government, but voting is the very least people can do, and the least effective method of reigning in governments.

First, voting itself is not a right, but is a privilege granted by government. To think that voting alone would work to protect the rights of individuals is naive at best. Secondly, there is a reason that so many members in this site get persnickety and quibble so much about the U.S. not being a democracy but rather a Constitutional republic. That reason is, that if it were merely a democracy, then the people could vote away rights and under the Constitutional republic we have here in the U.S. this is expressly prohibited.

Voting has its purpose and I don't mean to dismiss the value of it, but it is quite an impotent method when voting is the only recourse the People have, and greatly undermines what is meant by the people hold the inherent political power. When electing officials who then in turn appoint more officials, that inherent political power is not surrendered, but is transferred as a limited amount of power for a limited time.

There is far more the People can do in between voting and picking up weapons and declaring war on their own government. Your constant insistence that all they can do is vote, only tends to strengthen the resolve of those calling for an armed revolution. While a civil and courteous discourse can be effective, it is not necessary nor is it required in order to reign in out of control governments. Indeed, too often civility and courtesy can be misinterpreted for weakness.

I, along with you, do advocate a certain amount of civility and courtesy, but would stress that this civil discourse must be backed by firm resolve and a willingness to confront the problems head on. Voting is not a head on confront but is an indirect method of dealing with government.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
reply to post by av8r007

 

Alright... good luck with your VCR. Remember... and this is crucial... you will need batteries for the remote.

They have this new thing called a DVD player.

I am sure it would slide in real nice next to your 8 Track Tape Player!

Edit to add: What major event happened today in 1521 that changed the course of the Western World?

[edit on 3/1/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

magellan

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


1) Voting is key to change.

2) Writing, calling, and emailing your representatives and senators is an obligation.

3) Keep them honest and accountable by exposing problems publicly whenever found.

4) When given the opportunity to talk face to face with your representatives and senators, be direct, but polite. Don't be rude, don't scream, don't throw a temper tantrum, but calmly and directly tell them what you want them to do.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

1) Voting is key to change.

2) Writing, calling, and emailing your representatives and senators is an obligation.

3) Keep them honest and accountable by exposing problems publicly whenever found.

4) When given the opportunity to talk face to face with your representatives and senators, be direct, but polite. Don't be rude, don't scream, don't throw a temper tantrum, but calmly and directly tell them what you want them to do.

Voting is just one key to change on a key chain the public holds that contain a myriad of various keys. While writing, calling and e-mailing your representatives may have some effect on public policy, it is not an obligation. Certainly an open policy of accountability is another key, but clearly voting alone does not accomplish this.

In terms of your last assertion, I again stand with you on the need for civil and courteous discourse, but would remind you that throughout history the very Senators and Representatives you recommend being polite to, at least a few of them, (quite a few of them throughout history), have shown a proclivity towards being rude, screaming and throwing temper tantrums, instead of calmly debating the issue.

reply to post by whatukno


Those are indeed the keys to successful democratic process'... However, when the time comes that those are no longer viable solutions...

What then? Roll over and expose your throat? Or fight to retain, or recover, those rights?

Once your four means are gone, there are only two remaining. Much as it pains me to say it... The days of peaceful resolution, while not gone, are eroding rapidly. Elected officials are ignoring the voters who put them there...these are elected officials. So what are the bureaucrats doing behind their closed doors? Who really knows, because many of the watch dogs we elected are ignoring us to do what they want...

This may be an overstatement of what's going on, but how soon before they start ignoring the election results entirely, and start to call themselves lords?

Bit of an overstatement now, perhaps...but how long before the nightmare becomes reality? You have people who have done nothing in their lives save be a professional politician. That's not the way it was invisioned by Jefferson, Franklin, et al...

To restate the premise of this thread, which I disagree with wholeheartedly, Talk of an armed rebellion is not inappropriate, here or anywhere...

reply to post by seagull


If all else fails, they start calling themselves lords, they start hanging people in public for speaking out against them, they start killing civilians outright with no justification en masse. Then yes, that would be the time to rise up.

But until then, we do have other options.

I just wonder myself, what the purpose and end would be. Something tells me that it's not freedom at the end of the revolutionary road.

reply to post by whatukno


Do you have a scratch in your record or something?

When anyone on this thread states that if all else fails then a revolution is necessary. Also, after everyone states that talking about it is something that should be discussed, you go on about how they will be tyrants.

Repeat something enough times I guess.


Now your turn, come back with how anyone talking about revolution are nutcase, vengeful, whack jobs.

You can do it. It has been going on this entire thread.

Repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat and repeat again.

reply to post by whatukno


Do you honestly believe that an armed revolution will be limited, in the above circumstance, to a certain group of people? That's the impression you're giving me, anyway...

Have you seen, to use them as an example, any of the Tea Party gatherings? I've been to two of the local ones here in South eastern Washington state, and the political ideology runs the gamut from left of Jane Fonda to right of Rush Limbaugh. The commonality? Anger at the actions of the elected members of Congress, and the President over their seeming, or evident, unwillingness to listen to us.

I must say I found the multiparty anger to be in a certain way, refreshing...people will, indeed, get together once they're angry enough. That anger is growing. It'll be up to clear thinking individuals to control and direct that anger when/if the time comes.

reply to post by seagull


I have said it before, and I will say it again, I agree with the way that Tea Party activists use their constitutionally protected 1st amendment rights in a way that is effective and non violent. I can support for the most part their willingness to voice their concerns.

These protests should continue, and I would imagine that any politician that is foolish enough to denounce them would do so at great risk to his re-election.

Protesters are hardly revolutionaries, they are working correctly within the Constitution to voice their concerns. They are also doing it in the right way. I don't count tea party activists in the sphere of revolutionaries.

reply to post by whatukno


...and on that we agree. Where we are parting ways is the thought that eventually talking doesn't work anymore.

I agree with you that that time hasn't arrived...yet. I think it's closer now than at anytime in our countries history, and that scares the gee whillikers out of me. Even the civil rights movement wasn't this angry across the board, though I sure elements of it were...

I think I've said everything I've meant to say, but I'll leave y'all with this thought.

For our words to have any meaning politically, they must be backed by the perception, or reality, of violence. Ghandi's way, while preferable seldom works. You may, of course, disagree with that. It is, for the moment, a free country.

It is NOT illegal to call for the armed overthrow of ours or any government. Unless you take some positive action to do so, merely proposing a solution, even a violent one, falls under the freedom of expression protections guaranteed by the Constitution.

If it were illegal to even propose the use of force to accomplish the goal of re-establishing a truly lawful and righteous form of government as intended by the founding fathers and the documents they left us as the law, then we would never be able to fulfill the Declarations first and foremost use: As a means to change a corrupt system to a good one.

We are told in our founding documents that if government evers becomes so awful that it is untenable, we have a legal OBLIGATION to undo the corrupt government and replace it with the type intended originally. If we are unable to even discuss the use of force in reclaiming a lawful nation, then we are precluded from accomplishing that goal.

It is not legal to stifle conversation that is necessary to the upholding of the constitution in case of a needed change. Take the conspiracy laws: Merely talking about a crime is NOT a conspiracy, even with many players. Someone MUST take some positive action, some step toward the commission of a crime, before it becomes illegal. Mere talk, unless it is a threat meant to inspire fear or likley to be acted upon, is NOT criminal and cannot be.

There is a specific law against threatening the President , but you cannot ' threaten' a nation, only a person .Stating that armed revolution is in your opinion the only likley manner to effect change is just a commentary and opinion, and cannot be wrong or illegal. Opinions are sacrosanct; Mere opinions, no matter how concerning to some, are not the basis for denial..the day we are not free to imagine and discuss the worst possible scenarios in society is the day we may as well give up on any manner to effect change, no matter how bad it gets.

reply to post by richierich


The thing is, that at some point, when the People start moving en mass toward the capitol, they will all be breaking the law. They will be acting upon discussions such as this one.

This action would be perceived by those "in power" as a breach of law, and then they will execute forceful means to prevent the People from success... until the military turns on them, which they would. The thing about the military is this, they canNOT turn their guns on their own families, nor will they. "Blood is thicker than water", so they say.

I guess that at some point, the law will have to be broken in an attempt to reinstate it to it's previous unbroken state.

TheBorg
Still a worried/concerned Citizen.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by TheBorg]

Originally posted by seagull
For our words to have any meaning politically, they must be backed by the perception, or reality, of violence.

That's a fact...Take a look at how the various English Nobility got the King to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. It is probably accurate to say that the Magna Carta was a direct-line ancestor to the Declaration of Independence & the American Constitutional Republic...
That's one of the key points in the 2nd Amendment...The knowledge that We the People have the ability & the means to resist an oppressive government and/or to enforce lawful change "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."

Originally posted by autowrench
POLICEMAN: PASSENGERS KNOW THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE HEAVILY ARMED.
VEHICLE NOT FOR HIRE. DETAIN AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Hmmm...To use the terminology on the lawbooks that would put you & your car outside of Statutory jurisdiction:
POLICEMAN: TRAVELER & GUESTS IN THIS AUTOMOBILE KNOW THE CONSTITUTION. AUTOMOBILE NOT USED IN COMMERCE. COMMIT UNLAWFUL DETAINMENT AT OWN RISK.

Yes, it is lawful to carry your Arms in your Automobile, as long as you are not engaging in any commercial activity that crosses the boundaries of your State or travel onto Federal property (such as a military base or other federal land. It's also probably not wise to give public notice to the fact on the bumper sticker.

The key to those terms in law; "Vehicles" are commercial in nature...In your privately owned automobile, you are not engaged in any commercial activity (ie: using public roads for seeking profit or gain). If you use your personal transportation in the course of your employment, then don't put such a sticker on the car in the first place. "Passengers" are customers paying for you to transport them, but guests are invited along for free. "Drivers" or "Operators" are required to be licensed, but travelers are merely exercising their Right to Travel Freely on public roads & to transport personal belongings.

All of those traffic regulations & such are Statutory laws or Codes. Statutory laws are very limited in jurisdiction & carry less "weight" than the Supreme Law of the Land; If they are not directly derived from Common Law, then they carry a more limited jurisdiction. If Statutes (or Treaties) are enforced to a point where Civil Rights are violated, then they are void. They cannot lawfully detain you unless you are committing an actual Crime...That is to say, as long as you are not injuring someone, destroying someone else's property, disturbing the public peace or otherwise violating anyone else's Equal Rights under the Law.

The Rights included in the Constitution, Bill of Rights & (thanks to the 9th Amendment) the Common Law are all of greater legal weight than any Statute, Code, or Ordinance. By Supreme Court ruling, Lawful Exercise of Rights can never be converted into a Crime. A Rightful traveler has no obligation under the law to confirm identity, give any kind of information or accept/sign anything offered by a police officer, lest that officer risks his job & the bond on his office for acting in Breech of Oath of Office.

If stopped, just be reasonably polite, but make it clear that you are not granting your consent to be unlawfully detained. That officer has very little choice, without risking his job; He must let you go or arrest you for something, but it has to be a lawful arrest, not based on any Statute. After informing him of your lack of consent, just keep repeating two questions: "Am I under arrest?" & "Will you allow me to go?" The longer he tries to detain you, then inform him of your Rightful status as a traveler & that he's risking his job & bond by acting in Breech of Oath, then repeat those two questions. In order to press home your point, also ask him for his name, badge number, his precinct, the name of his Commanding Officer & the name of the company that holds his Bond of Office...Write it down.

Say nothing else & agree to nothing he tells you to do; don't even answer "yes" or "no" to any questions. Even if you're dragged out of your car, don't get violent. If you know your Rights & the Due Process of Law, you'll be able to nail his job to the wall & slap a lien on his Bond of Office; As an added bonus, he'll be permanently disqualified for holding any Office Under Public Trust & can be indicted in an Article 3 Court under Common Law for any violations to your Rights. You may even be able to sue further for loss of time, humiliation in a public setting, damage to your personal reputation & who knows what else? If he impounds your car, you can nail him for violating the 4th Amendment (unlawful seizure) as well as all costs incurred to get your car back. It would depend mostly on his actions during the arrest. In short, make it very clear that you will make it much more expensive on the city & the officer than what the city could gain by levying any fines on you. The court will most likely take the cheapest way out...

Originally posted by richierich
Mere talk, unless it is a threat meant to inspire fear or likley to be acted upon, is NOT criminal and cannot be.

So, when Bush was fear-mongering in Congress to push the Patriot Act through Congress when they didn't even have opportunity to read it, then that means Bush is a criminal, doesn't it? So why does Obama refuse to "faithfully execute the laws" as per his Oath of Office & bring Bush to justice? Wouldn't letting Bush go unchallenged mean that Obama is "giving aid & comfort" according to the Constitutional definition of Treason? After all, Obama can still issue a Pardon, but only after a Guilty judgment...Pardons cannot be used for those judged as innocent.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer


But if the police officer so much as touches me without probable cause, that's also a breach of their oath, and more importantly a breach of my rights. Common Law states that I have a right to self-defense, regardless of whom the aggressor is. If a cop pulls me out of my car, without good reason, I have provocation to defend myself. To say otherwise would be to deny me the rights that the Constitution gave me...

This is where the law gets messy, because people forget that it was already discussed before it was written. The SPIRIT, or INTENT of the law was already defined before being ratified, so there should be no discussions as to it's viability later on... which brings me once again back to the 2nd Amendment. If ALL people carried guns, with the exception of convicted felons, then the world would be a MUCH safer place. At least that's what the Founders thought, and I tend to agree with them.

TheBorg

Wow! I bet the IP of the OP goes to a nice little Virginia community. This thread is just fantastic. It's amazing how many disinfo strategists and propagandists frequent this site!


"Papers! I need to zee your papers!"

Honestly, I kind of agree with the OP
we shouldn't talk of an armed revolution ATS

no need for the govt. to brand ATS as a militia site
that wouldn't be in anyone's interest

Originally posted by traderjack
Wow! I bet the IP of the OP goes to a nice little Virginia community. This thread is just fantastic. It's amazing how many disinfo strategists and propagandists frequent this site!


"Papers! I need to zee your papers!"

Wow. I wish I was in the tax bracket of somebody who works at Langley or the NSA. Dude, you don't know how hard I laughed when I read this! Good stuff. Once again, should people have the right to discuss anything, no matter how distasteful? Absolutely. The title of the thread says it all; It's inappropriate to advocate violence here on ATS. Here. Your house, the street, your local Pro-Violence social club, no problem. ATS? C'mon, that's not what this site is for. Disinfo strategist? You give me too much credit my friend. I'm a rock musician and audio engineer, not a social(ist) engineer.
I do appreciate your valued opinion however. At least we're addressing the issue and having a discussion.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Thank you .Someone finally gets it. I'm sure ATS gets enough unwanted attention as it is. We don't need hate mongers to get ATS shut down or some such foolishness. I want this site to thrive and exist, not get shut down or over-ran with real spooks. Can you guys imagine this site even existing in China? Google can't even exist there without a hassle.

Originally posted by moonzoo7
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Thank you .Someone finally gets it. I'm sure ATS gets enough unwanted attention as it is. We don't need hate mongers to get ATS shut down or some such foolishness. I want this site to thrive and exist, not get shut down or over-ran with real spooks. Can you guys imagine this site even existing in China? Google can't even exist there without a hassle.

The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure there is a defense mechanism in place to protect the 1st and all subsequent Amendments within the Bill of Rights. While I have consistently advocated engaging in a reasonable revolution, or velvet revolution if you will, in order to reign in an out of control government, your own words suggest that government is no doubt out of control.

If any government, and by your words it is inferred you are referring to the U.S. government, since this is where the talk of armed revolution is taking place for the most part, shuts down an internet site because of such discussions, then no doubt that government has shown a blatant disregard for the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press.

Your example of China only underscores this point. As I have suggested to another poster on this thread, your insistence that certain issues shouldn't be discussed for fear of government reprisal only strengthens the resolve of those people who feel an armed revolution is eminent, and who can blame them if it has truly gotten to a point where simple discussion can't take place without fearing being shut down by the government?

reply to post by moonzoo7


People can say what they want,it's part and parcel of freedom of speech! If you shut them up,You're acting just like the Gov't which so many dislike the abuses of.