"Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms" 1775. Are we there yet?

page: 1
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
"Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of taking up Arms" written July 6, 1775, was a declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.
Based on this document compared with our situation in the United States today, how close are we to the situation that our forefathers had when they declared they were taking arms?

Note in my comparison that references to the Crown of England are replaced with the U.S. Government, the English colonies with the States and colonists with citizens.


Four basic reasons given for taking arms against the King of England.


1. The Legislature must show "an inordinate passion" for unjustifiable power that is rejected by the constitution.

2. The people are not successful in legal contests against the Government in regards to truth and laws.

3. Our politicians and leaders, can't be chosen by the people (ie. no vote or fixed voting), are exempt from the laws and are not subject to the people's control.

4. The people have to have tried peaceful means of changing the government for at least ten years without results.


Now a list of specific grievances given in the document.


The Government has to . . .

have a purpose of enslaving the people and States
fall into confusion, gradually losing prosperity
give and grant our (people or State's) money without our consent
deprive us (the people) of trial by jury in cases affecting both life and property
suspend the legislature of one of the States
interdict (commanding that) all commerce (go) to the capital of another (other than the people or State)
fundamentally alter the form of government established by charter (the U.S. constitution)
exempt the "murderers" (police or troops) of citizens from legal trial and punishment
create a dangerous despotism in a neighboring country (think Mexico?)
quarter soldiers (house in citizen owned buildings) in times of peace
transport citizens to foreign countries to be tried for committing certain offenses (rendition?)
create statutes declaring that the government can make laws to bind us in all cases whatsoever
establish a perpetual auction of taxation where State bids against State, to extort taxes from the people at the point of a gun
cut off commercial intercourse of whole States, with foreign countries, and with each other
prohibit States from the fisheries on which they depend in the seas near their coasts
have the military occupy a couple of important cities causing destruction, death and injury
confiscate guns under false pretenses then detain the gun owners and take all their property
falsely accuse the citizens and "declare them all, either by name or description, to be rebels and traitors", supersede the common law and exercise martial law.

Source: odur.let.rug.nl...

I've tried to boil this down into a check list. I'd like input from ATS members to see if we can check off most of the reasons given in this document and see what we have left. I think we have a way to go before the government has gotten as bad as the Crown was back then.
edit on 24-10-2011 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Last Lines




posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
So much information is hidden from the people so revolutionary numbers aren't quite where they need to be yet. In my mind, we are long past due to storm the gates and arrest the criminals in charge.

I have 2 wooden "1775" patriot beating a drum wall hangings in my living room. Posed like this guy... media.masslive.com...
Everyone always asks me, "Shouldn't that say 1776?"



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Indeed, I think the USA is at this point. One would assume only ome of those items on the list needs to be breached.

If people took up arms against the government in the light of whats going on, I would applaude them. And imo they would be protected by the constitution.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
In fact, I think 9/11 itself is justification. We know vote riggong has happened. All the US really needs is people to get behind, leaders as it were.

But what may actually happen is there may be false leaders put in place by tptb. The US needs a rallying point so to speak. We will have to wait and see what happens.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
taxation.. u.s citizens are taxed more now than when they were a colony ..

As to a 2nd revolution.. Doubt that will ever happen - the american people to divided amongst themselves to form any sort of worthwhile resistance.. Chaos and a 2nd civil war would seem alot more likely scenario...



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
No we are not there yet. I'm sure there are many salivating for a chance to take up arms against those things they fear the most.

But in the end, the losers will be the people.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 24-10-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
There already was a revolution to get the point where we find ourselves now.

Also, if people think that this will be remedied by a libertarian/constitutional movement, think again. As an observer, a communist/authoritarian usurpation looks to be a heck of a lot more likely.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
The real issue is who ends up in control of all the branches of the military in a civil uprising? Will the military/army/reserve go along with TPTB and think they are doing it for "the good of the country"? Or will whole sections defect, taking over air bases and military holdouts and supply the people with weapons and basic training?

Also what would the factions be in another civil war? Because it would become a civil war, not the people vs. government. Would it become democrats vs. republicans (lol), or would it become capitalists vs. socialists vs. communists? Would a completely new faction arise that has different ideals?

Like me for example, I think the best possible situation for a country is to have a truly benevolent King. Someone who has the power and ability to make decisions, who is rational and wise, not greedy, and cares only for the people. Yes, I know its a pipe dream, but in such a situation a country can really become prosperous. A truly judicious individual can be bi-partisan, can enact compromises, and can institute a system of justice that is really fair.

The two party system doesn't work, and 4 year terms are too short these days to accomplish anything. We need to have multiple parties, and we need to have a system that gives each one a completely equal opportunity. That means no media bias, that means every candidate truly gets equal airtime, that means there are limits to how much money each candidate can have, and furthermore it means each candidate will be given the same amount of money. It wont be Obama having 500 million dollars and his competition having 150 million. It wont be one guy flooding the airwaves and the little guy who doesnt have money not being able to speak his message. Thats a REAL democracy.

However, every single system of government is ultimately capable of corruption and failure. Until men and women can learn to rule themselves we can't have a perfect world. People often say that less government is better, but unfortunately we have to keep replanting the seeds that create government over and over again because people are incapable of self control.

For example, no government means criminals will run rampant, the streets will be horribly unsafe. We will return to a wild west sort of situation. Eventually people will decide enough is enough, and begin to form groups of people to keep everyone safe. Suddenly you have a police force, which means you also begin to create laws.

It goes on and on. Same thing with money. Once you have a monetary trade system, you have to create a system of value for that system. You need to have a place where you can exchange that money for goods, as well as to keep large amounts of it.

Once you have a major city, public areas, the question becomes (whose job is it to maintain this road, to fix this pipe, to plant this tree). Suddenly you create groups of people to do these things, since its public its not any one particular persons responsibility, and there is no reason why Bob the Stonemason has to be responsible himself for doing all the labor and spending all the money to fix some pothole.

These are the foundations of how and why government exists. So what does a self ruled nation even look like? In the least there has to be a system of taxation to address maintaining publicly used areas (unless you want EVERYTHING to be privately owned). In this case you have a single central authority that doles out funds for local projects. Things like welfare don't have to exist. If people who were in hard times could simply receive help from a kind individual, and if the person in hard times was not also some kind of criminal but simply hit a rough patch or made a bad financial choice, people would easily get back on their feet.

Its the fact that many people if you let them in your home might well do something you wouldn't like that prevents people from expressing this kindness. So now we need a welfare system. Why have welfare? Because if you just say "let em die! Let em starve to death!" You condemn yourself as well if you are ever in that situation. Nobody wants that, and a truly kind individual wants to see everyone do well. Plus then you just get people who are starving looting stores and robbing others to stay alive.

See? It goes on and on and on. If we could create a hybrid of tribal/communal living and the way our current society is, we might be able to pull off some nationwide harmony where government is extremely small and has virtually no power.

Good luck on that though. Rebels are usually closet aristocrats, ala Animal Farm and the Wisdom of Frank Herbert...



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I think the government has crossed the line on many of these points. Here is what I believe we have left to go in this list.


suspend the legislature of one of the States

cut off commercial intercourse of whole States, with foreign countries, and with each other

have the military occupy a couple of important cities causing destruction, death and injury

confiscate guns under false pretenses then detain the gun owners and take all their property

supersede the common law and exercise martial law.

Any opinions on what is left?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 


How about this one?


transport citizens to foreign countries to be tried for committing certain offenses (rendition?)

Does this count? Anwar al-Awlaki
The government didn't transport him to a foreign country, just executed (tried) him there, so maybe not.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gwynnhwyfar
reply to post by MichiganSwampBuck
 


How about this one?


transport citizens to foreign countries to be tried for committing certain offenses (rendition?)

Does this count? Anwar al-Awlaki
The government didn't transport him to a foreign country, just executed (tried) him there, so maybe not.


That sounds close enough for me. Of course skipping a step like having a trial, that sounds even worse. Our government has done a lot of renditions without trial.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Got some good replies going, thanks everyone. Two and a half hours in, this thread has dropped to page two of recently active topics. Thought it would get more activity than that. Anyway, thanks for the stars and flags.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Down to page three now. Oh well. I'll be researching each point and giving examples of what laws, acts, or actions by the government I can find that relate to each point in the list. I'll post that as I can and see if this thread can stay afloat.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
revolutions are like pressure cookers. it's not something that's planned. revolutions are an involuntary by product of oppression and injustices against the people as a whole.

the pressure just builds and builds until it explodes and the people come to a realization that they are and always were in charge.

it's a form of temporary insanity taken out on the government. it's like removing a toothache that has been slowly causing you to go mad.

the outcome is feeling a normalcy and peace that has been drowned out by the pain.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Maybe I didn't read it right, but according to point 4, the OWS protests need to continue for another 9 years and 11 months or thereabouts?



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
We are nowhere near the point of any violent revolution, and way past due for a genuine and velvet revolution. The primary difference between 1775 and today is then people were confronting Divine Right doctrines which asserted that some well heeled clown had the right to "rule" over everyone else because God chose him/her to do so. Today, in the United States, and as a point of law, We the People are hold the inherent political power.

Let me state this again: As a point of law, it is We the People who hold the inherent political power.

Further, we have continually had peaceful regime changes in this country for at least 100 years. The past 100 plus years it is arguable that we have only had the appearance of peaceful regime change. However, the axiom "People get the government they deserve" holds true.

We are where we are at today because We the People, with our fingers in our noses and our thumbs up our asses, let it happen.

Who would we have a revolution against? Ourselves? No, I am afraid a violent revolt would only be a civil war, and not the needed revolution. Further, since we wrought this corruption ourselves, it is hard to imagine how a heavily armed mob would correct this problem simply by hanging monkeys.

If we cannot figure out how to peacefully make changes then what are we, and why would we deserve any better than we're getting. It is when we have figured out how to make these peaceful changes, and only if that fails, that then, and only then, we turn to that last resort, but make no mistakes about this: The vast majority of People in this country stupidly, and I mean moronically, frame the 2nd Amendment as a "gun" issue. If all these people genuinely believe that their little pop guns can withstand the unbelievable arsenal of that most dubious of military's (The United States Military), then we have all ready lost that war.



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux




Who would we have a revolution against? Ourselves? No, I am afraid a violent revolt would only be a civil war, and not the needed revolution. Further, since we wrought this corruption ourselves, it is hard to imagine how a heavily armed mob would correct this problem simply by hanging monkeys.





An armed mob might start out calling themselves revolutionaries but I agree it would quickly turn into a civil war with people of color [useless eaters] as I have seen them referred to here on ATS, taking the brunt of the "revolution"........in effect a race war; Much more likely than an attack on the govt. imo.

At one time and not long ago having a black GF, I received the brunt of verbal and physical attacks. There is an astonishing amount of racism still alive and well in the US and I feel it is possible that under the right conditions this racism could become organized against a scapegoat. Are there similarities between the Germany of the 30s and today in the US?

hispanic.cc...

Hey JPZ, who you callin a monkey.
I know what you mean [french uniform] but most don't and it could be misinterpreted.
edit on 24-10-2011 by whaaa because: 7u7



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Yeah alright i don't know what's more disturbing the thought of picking up arms and killing their own fellow countryman based off pure unadulterated deception and manipulation or the thought that some person needs a check list and peer approval.

Anyone who says they believe in the US Constitution will never pick up arms agaist their fellow American the sheer number of people screaming bloody murder, revolution is no better than a thug all be it a one with a slightly hipper rap.

And even suggesting armed revolt is peeing on the Founders memories and everyone who has ever fought for this nation.

Ridiculous.
edit on 24-10-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 





Hey JPZ, who you callin a monkey. I know what you mean, but most don't and it could be misinterpreted.


I suppose you're right. I just get tired of linking these things all the time and wish at some point it would become clear what I mean by "hanging monkeys".



posted on Oct, 24 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMindWar
 


"If people took up arms against the government in the light of whats going on, I would applaude them. And imo they would be protected by the constitution." That's quite a statement. Do you actually know what happens when people take up arms against their government ? It's not a video game. When the bullets start flying and people start dying, the original intent soon goes out the window and people just want to kill because their friends have been killed.

Atrocities become common place, in the name of ______________ [ insert your cause ].

You can't go out to the store or a place of entertainment without wondering if you were going to make it back home alive and uninjured.

Your ability to communicate is drastically reduced.

In short, you are then living in hell.

So, if you want to applaud [encourage ] others to take up arms, I have to ask, are you also willing to do the same, or are planning on sitting on the sideline and watching like you're at a football game ? Guess what, there are no sidelines in this scenario.

Good luck, grasshopper, you're going to need it if the bullets start to fly.






top topics



 
17
<<   2 >>

log in

join