It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Can riot police really stop a full uprising?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 09:13 PM
After watching the numerous videos of riots occurring in Europe, and even here in America, I noticed that the riot police really have no control. It is not the riot police that contain the people from overtaking the key areas they are protecting. It is the fear of the people that stop the situation from escalating to a point where out of control violence occurs.

The last riots in the UK over tuition costs made me question how and why the police maintain power over the mass amounts of people! The people outnumber the police by outrageous numbers.

If the people of the world decided to rise up and take back the control of their governments/lives, could the police really do anything about it? Is our worst enemy not the riot police, but the will and actions of the people who are not willing to take that final, crucial step of overtaking those who stand in their way?

My opinion is NO! A true, full uprising of the people would be unstoppable. We are inhibited by our fears and our desire to get along with our neighbors, but are not willing to take action against those who oppress us. When the full-uprising does occur, it will be a site to see. Our government's and police have no chance. Their only option would be to listen to us, or the hammer would fall harder than any riot we have seen in history!

But would the people be willing to rise to that occasion? Unfortunately, I think not.

posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by sheepslayer247

The problem is that a riot would not establish control.

I don't think we should have an income-graded tax system. I think that an individual should be able to earn money and spend it as they see fit - and only be taxed on spending.

You might believe otherwise, and be rioting because you hate the fact that most of the wealth in the country is concentrated in the top 10% of the population.

I would be rioting because I don't like how the bureaucracy is taking over control of businesses, individual rights, etc. You would be rioting for a completely different reason, and when we both meet on Capitol Hill, see each other as the very reason we are rioting.

If I'm in a mood where I am willing to kill those I disagree with and see as the problem - I certainly wouldn't let the fall of organized government stand between me and killing the source of the problem.

Which is why I don't see the point in getting violent. It would do nothing but lead to people killing people, destroying property, and getting absolutely nothing accomplished.

Of course the police and military would be pretty powerless to stop a civil uprising. The police and military would end up being -part- of that uprising, were it such an influential thing. Most people, however, realize that a violent uprising would ultimately solve nothing. Which is why you will not find many willing to commit to such an act.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 12:14 AM
reply to post by Aim64C

I agree completely. We will all have our differences why we rise up and speak out, but my point is whether or not the government could actually control a full-scale uprising.

You answered that question and I believe you are right.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 10:50 AM
Please sir,define "fullscale uprising". And if your definition is the same as mine-The people once called protestors are now a large militia,armed with the guns they had at their house,the mind set of these people is not to worry, if they will go to jail for what they do,but how many of their oppossers will they take out before bieng taken out themselfs.

If something like this happened,no riot police could not stop it,they only have bean bag rifles and batons. A simple rifle would stop them. So then you have to ask,could the swat take them out,probably not. Because again we are talking about a full scale uprising,not one guy standing in public with a gun.So you would infact have to rely on the military to take such a group out. And yes,the military has the technology needed to take out such a group.

but even after that you have to ask,"How long would it take the military to be put into action?".

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:05 PM
reply to post by whipsandchainsamerica

With the military in the mix it's a whole different story. If they were called into to quell an uprising, we may be screwed. But I don't think members of the military are going to open fire on American citizens. That may be naive, but I believe it nonetheless.

I hope that we can reform our government in a peaceful way, and I never advocate violence, but I see things going terribly wrong before it gets any better.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:06 PM
reply to post by sheepslayer247

Can riot police really stop a full uprising? We will soon find out...

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:10 PM
A full uprising? No!. A riot? Yes!

The difference is an uprising has leadership and direction with established goals and objectives. where as a riot as prolonged as it may be, is radom chaos, with loosely drawn borders.

I was amazed to see in the London riot, the protesters now carrying shields.

That did make me smile.

Just look up ancient roman tactics and you're on to a winner, unless they pull out the guns. Its then you want some regiments on your side!

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by byteshertz

Welcome to the conversation!

Do you happen to have information regarding your statement or just a hunch?

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:11 PM
reply to post by sheepslayer247

That self control you're bemoaning is called civilization.
For society to function there must be laws...The hammer you're gleefully waiting to fall...Won't just be a sight to see...It will KILL innocent people.To eagerly await it is disgusting.
If you feel society is unfair...Work to change it...Not to destroy it.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by nivekronnoco

I do not look forward to an event such as this at all. Unfortunately, I think our apathy will force a drastic measure like this to be taken, whether we want it to or not.

I will state again that I do not advocate violence, but foresee such an end coming to pass if we cannot get our leaders to listen.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:14 PM
reply to post by sheepslayer247

With the military in the mix it's a whole different story.

This is somewhat true. I will explain more in a bit.

If they were called into to quell an uprising, we may be screwed. But I don't think members of the military are going to open fire on American citizens. That may be naive, but I believe it nonetheless.

This is a very iffy situation. I can tell you, as a uniformed member of the military service - that I would prefer to never have to fire a weapon at anyone, especially people in my own country. However, perhaps it would be better to tell you what criteria would have to be met for me to engage "civilians" in an armed or unarmed uprising.

For me - it would be partly about how it's done. If, say, my home state of Missouri decided it was going to become its own free nation (a power granted to it by the Constitution and inherent to the concepts of self-governance), that's fine. However, if they were to then use militia and guard to strike against other states or federal forces without provocation, then I would be of the opinion that military force is necessary and proper.

If the 'uprising' became violent toward groups other than the bureaucrats. It's fine to go grab the guy sitting in the office and toss him out on the front lawn, and say that things are going to be different. It's another thing to turn over cars, set buildings (and people) on fire, etc. If I would normally be sympathetic to your cause - that will convince me you need to be smacked and told to sit down.

Another thing to consider - if someone shoots at me, strikes at me, etc - it will be returned ten fold. I don't give a damned who they are, what uniform they wear, etc. So, becoming violent towards the military and its members is -not- recommended. Yes, 'we' may show up. Stop and think about it -very- carefully before taking any hostile action. From 'our' viewpoint - there are a few thousand angry people armed with whatever they picked up on their way to form a 'mob' (of sorts). We've all seen the videos of riots, fires, and senseless destruction that come from them. That is what 'we' are there to prevent. 'We' are also out-numbered at least 10:1 in most cases - and are probably very scared of the prospect of having that mob storm us. There are few ways to die that are worse than being captured by a group of a hundred angry people.

Generally speaking - it would be a very good idea to try and use the military as an intermediary. The politicians can write away all they want to in that building. Nothing they write is going to make us do anything we don't want to. Nothing could be so fundamental to this principle as firing on our own friends, families, families of friends, friends of family, etc. We don't want to see people die. And, in general, we in the military are not very fond of the bureaucrats placed in charge of us, or the policies they tend to try and shove down everyone's throat.

If we are talking a major uprising, involving the militia, then the military could not put it down. If it does involve the militias - it's likely a large portion of our military will defect to their cause, anyway. The militia, military, and alphabet-soup agencies are far more closely related than any bureaucrat would like. The militias would not take any serious action without already having some good deals cut with the military, local governments, etc. The militia are the "end game" - the "exit strategy" and the "order in the chaos."

Without them - and the backing of local governments - you may as well view our share of North America the same way we look at the former USSR.

posted on Dec, 15 2010 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Our government's and police have no chance. Their only option would be to listen to us, or the hammer would fall harder than any riot we have seen in history!

No, they have another option: They can open fire.

You willing to take a bullet?

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:40 AM
reply to post by Aim64C

Very interesting idea. Using the military as a go-between with the people and governments? I believe that would be a good idea as long as you had an intelligent person in charge on the military side that knew when to step in.

Hopefully they are not "too smart" and decide to start a military coup!

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 12:02 PM
If everyone in the country decided not to show up for work, that might do something. The elites need people to still work. That would probably get more attention that a riot.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by jessieg

Now that is a great idea. If we could figure out a way to organize such an event, and get the people to believe in it's effectivness, I think it would be much more effective than a riot.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:00 PM
reply to post by sheepslayer247

The method will be in the madness.

Essentially - there would have to be a military coupe initiated as a response to civilian uprising, and the military provide the intermediary leadership necessary to facilitate a new "Constitutional Convention." This would have to happen by having a decision supported by the vast majority of strategic commanders and a number of their subordinates. It would require a -more or less- public declaration that the Armed Forces have assumed the temporary responsibility of the national government following oath-violating orders and civil unrest.

Essentially - it needs to be "everyone sit down and take a chill pill, and we'll start straightening all of this out tomorrow, just get some sleep tonight, the world will be here when you wake up - we've got this."

It should be noted that state governments would still remain with their authority, and it should be made clear that the military leaders are simply stating that things are out of hand, and opening the table for discussion. They are not going to be making policy changes per se - simply attempting to maintain the Union by saying "yeah... this isn't working.... let's sit down and hammer out a new piece of paper that will be ignored in two hundred years' time."

You will probably have some crazies in all corners of society (including the military) wanting to use the opportunity to gain power. That is why it is important the military - as a whole - is aboard with the idea. When crazy old Larry down at the National Guard armory decides it's time to take a few Abrams and Strykers with some of his buddies and blow people up - the response needs to be decisive and homogeneous between military, militia, and civilian. You can't have 10% of the population rallying behind him because they see him as having a better plan than everyone else.

If we don't act mostly together on things - then it will all fall apart in a hell of a hurry, because people will panic and side with the crazy "man with a plan." Call them what you want - they often become warlords.

I think I'm beating a dead horse, though - the idea should be pretty clear by now.

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 07:13 PM
reply to post by jessieg

That sounds like a good idea.

However, there are several problems. First - the average American household has about three days of food stored in their house. As we have seen with numerous other states of emergency - people remain hopeful and reasonable until this critical point is reached. Afterward, looting begins to happen - and it's the proverbial slippery slope from there.

Hospitals are also working at or near capacity - which means healthcare providers not going to work is simply not an option.

While a number of power plants could continue to operate for some time - many would shut down after a day or two, due to their own failsafes and the lack of people to prevent conditions that would trigger automatic shut-downs.

A lot of things in your house run on electricity - one of the more important being your refrigerator - the next being an oven or stove (this may be gas, and you may have alternatives). Not to mention lights.

Are you starting to see where there are some problems with this?

I know everyone around here likes to use the term "elites" and to blame the events of the world upon them - but, really, YOU need people to go to work. The entire reason we have this economy and the concept of a job is because it is required for society to function. Getting a large portion of people to not go to work is not going to fix the problem of government - that is going to cause society to collapse when people run out of food in their pantry.

top topics


log in