People advocating or warning of a new American Revolution or Civil War...Who are your enemies?

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 



It's true that I am pretty much dismissing replies that use "patriotism" or "the constitution" as their basis for their reply.

I do this because it is empty rhetoric.



There you have it folks!!!!! Someone who hates the Constitution and wants to destroy it!!! So for those of us this person is baiting, they in their own words, called those who use the Constitution as their arguement as using "empty rhetoric"!!!!!

No desire to learn anything or intellectually understanding anything........just a pitiful attempt to piss someone off and frame em up!

I am sure the owners of ATS would find pleasure in being served with papers and have to go thru the hassle of providing all of the required info because of a thread like this.......

TROLL THREAD!!
edit on 14-1-2013 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by seeker1963
 



Now you are begging????!!!!!!!

I think you need to tell your bosses (at whatever alphabet agency you work for) that you need some more training!

People have answered your questions already! Now you want specifics????? WOW!!!


And this seems to be all people have.

No real answers, just deflection.

People have answered my questions with generic hyperbolic BS of "patriotism" and "enemies of the Constitution"...but I honestly don't believe they have any idea what that even means. Who is against the Constitution? Those that see a problem with our gun culture and want to do something about it?

It doesn't seem like anyone knows what actually constitutes an "enemy of the Constitution" or how that is exactly defined. All I see is people basically saying "I know my enemy when I see them", but really have no idea how to articulately define who exactly that would be.

It is starting to seem that the only "enemies of the Constitution" are the ones that are willing to call for a "Revolution" if they don't get what they want. In case you don't already know, the Constitution doesn't not provide for you to revolt against the country.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


Threats? What the hell are you talking about? The OP merely asked who you are planning on fighting to keep your rights, something which I admit I was curious about too.

I am almost positive some of the gun nuts in this thread have reported the OP, don't you think if he was breaking forum rules the admin would be all over it like poo on flypaper?

So, now that we have established that your statement is nonsense, can you move on to actually attempt to answer the OPs perfectly reasonable question?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by xedocodex
 



It's true that I am pretty much dismissing replies that use "patriotism" or "the constitution" as their basis for their reply.

I do this because it is empty rhetoric.



There you have it folks!!!!! Someone who hates the Constitution and wants to destroy it!!! So for those of us this person is baiting, they in their own words, called those who use the Constitution as their arguement as using "empty rhetoric"!!!!!

No desire to learn anything or intellectually understanding anything........just a pitiful attempt to piss someone off and frame em up!

TROLL THREAD!!


Sounds more like he is tossing out people who wrap themselves in the constitution but really have no idea what it says.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by redhorse
 



You are not interested in discussion. Discussion implies a willingness to learn. You are only interested in a brawl with people whose ideologies disagree with your own, and attempting (badly) to bait those people into saying something that you can paint as "crazy", or "violent", possibly incriminating, or some combination of all three.


I'm beginning to think I'm the only one interested in discussion, with all the calls for closing this thread, I think most of you just don't want me to bring up these difficult questions.

I honestly don't know who these people see as the enemy, and I thought people would at least know who they think the enemy is. But it seems like that might not be the case.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


It is a tactic the gun nuts use mate, pay it no heed. There is a concerted effort here on ATS at the moment by the gun nut crowd to silence and crush any dissenting opinion by any means possible, regardless of facts and the truth.

I call them out for their nonsense whenever possible. They deflect, cherry pick and outright lie but I will always be there to show them up for the BS artists they are.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
By definition, aren't the enemies in a revolution the Government of varying stages?

Either State or Federal, a revolution would probably be very short lived. I doubt that many troops would side with the American people in such a revolution, at least in the beginning.

As far as a civil war, if this were ever to happen in today's environment, it would be rich vs poor or liberal ideology vs far right ideology.

Very, very hard to figure out who the targets would be in either situation.


Yes, very hard to figure out...and that is exactly what I am asking and hoping people will think about.

I like my neighbor, he is a great guy, and he loves his guns. He knows that I am a gun control advocate, we have discussed it before and it is a respectful and nice conversation (tends to happen more irl than on the internet). So if a Revolution were to happen, should he view me as an "enemy". Someone who I talk to all the time, have cookouts with, whos kids play together?

I just honestly don't think people really think through what is meant by a "revolution" or a "civil war".



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
The enemy of the free are those who wish to strip away freedoms and ANYONE who sides with the oppressers and stealing of freedoms. For example a not every Nazi was an enemy to those the group oppressed. You hear stories of Nazis hiding people and looking the other way but in the same instances a citizen who helped the Nazis oppress others was an enemy. There is no way to fight goverment you must fight the people who SUPPORT the oppressive goverment regardless of their name. There will be soldiers who will follow orders regardless if right or wrong and the man next to them might shoot said soldier for being a tyrant.

In the new revolution there will not be a name to the parties involved per se it will just be "freedom fighters" and "freedom oppressors" and both sides may wear the same uniform.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Perhaps you need to re-read the op.


Originally posted by xedocodex
who exactly do they think they are going to be at war with?

The President? The Government? The United States Military? Your Neighbor who happens to think that some gun control is a good idea? Piers Morgan? Bob Costas?


I'll repeat it in case you missed it again..."Who are they going to war with?"

If you don't understand that "war" is life or death situation, and a direct threat against lives, then this little discussion is over.

This thread is asking people to come in and make direct threats against specified people's lives. It's against the T&Cs, and against the law.
edit on 1/14/13 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
Personally, I'm amazed this thread is still up. The T&Cs of ATS prohibit making threats, and prohibit discussion of illegal activities. This thread is nothing short of asking members to make direct threats by naming individuals allegedly being "targeted". Clearly this is a trolling attempt, and not very well thought out in regards to the forum rules.

I've heard people voice concerns over possible "civil war" type scenarios in my daily life around the city, but I've never seen anyone make a threat against anyone, or any agency in particular in regards to such.


Well by that logic, they should close every single thread that discusses "revolution" or "civil war", because they all involve illegal activities and violence.

I'm not asking anyone to name individuals, notice I have not used any names in any of my posts. Who is the enemy, neighbor, politician, government employee, President, anyone who disagrees with you?

So you are fine with people talking about a civil war and them not even mentioning who their enemy would be? What if that enemy is you?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


I don't know what OP your reading mate but the one I read was perfectly reasonable.

Have you reported the thread yet like a good little gun nut? Are you noticing a distinct lack of admin blocking or deleting it? What does that tell you hmm?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 



I guess its hard for some people to see the shades of grey past all the black and white they paint their views with.
The people who shout revolution, im not sure if they see that it's not so cut and dry as "you are enemy and you are not" when it comes to 300 million + people.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


Actually, by the gun nut rationale you and I are the enemy.

I'm shaking in my boots, really.
The gun nutters want us dead for simply having an opinion
edit on 14/1/2013 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex
I'm not asking anyone to name individuals, notice I have not used any names in any of my posts. Who is the enemy, neighbor, politician, government employee, President, anyone who disagrees with you?


The underlined portion a direct lie. You specifically asked for names, and used "Piers Morgan" and "Bob Costas" directly in your original post's question.

Dishonesty isn't going to help anything; so no need to attempt to whitewash your attempt now.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I do not believe that any individuals are seriously gping to "take up arms" against "the government" at all. As far as so-called "militia groups," they are small and also far more radical than your average citizen who believes in the second amendment. They may be able to be a thorn in the side of law & order, but they will never amount to a significant opposition movement. For one thing, they don't have the firepower. I don't care how many guns or how much ammunition you have stashed away, you can only fire one at a time. They don't have any tanks, but the government does.

The only way I could see anything playing out seriously is if a state such as Texas, Wyoming, Montana, or maybe others legislatively refused to accept the federal governments edicts. This would, of course, be contested in the courts with the US Attorney General suing the states. The Federal Court system would get involved, and it would seem to me that the Federal Court System, by and large, would side with the Feds. Duh. If AT THAT POINT the state(s) in question STILL told the Feds to take a hike, that's where it could get interesting.

Even at this point, though, you would have a significant number of the citizenry who would not go along with this and would protest. There are quite a few constituent groups who make a fine living having the government give them handouts, and they're not going to want this gravy train to stop.

Another group that has to be taken into consideration is the US military. Many surveys have indicated that US soldiers would not fire on the civilian populace, but can you be sure of that? Remember Kent State? May 4th, 1970. Four dead, nine wounded, and what did the protestors do? Run. But let's pretend THIS TIME "protestors" would not run--just for the sake of argument so we can continue this line of reasoning.

Last time this sort of thing happened serously is when George Wallace asserted states rights in terms of segregation. He called up the State National Guard to PREVENT desegregation. then the President "nationalized' the state National Guard and the very same citizen-soldiers who were ordered to PREVENT desegregation were then ordered to ENFORCE it. Same companies, same regiments, same people in uniform. Wallace lost.

Now I don't want to debate segregation here. That's really not the issue. The point is that a state (Alabama under Wallace) stood up to the Feds (under Kennedy) on an issue of States rights and lost. So the question becomes, could a state win ever?

I suspect it boils down to whether the National Guard of a given state would and even could stay loyal to the state. If a state could keep the National Guard and tell the Federal Courts to take a hike, then the power of the Feds would be challenged to such a point that it could spark violence.

But it still begs the question of the citizens. Right now in this country we have half the people thinking Obama is a saint and half of them believe he is the devil. (Obama as a symbol for the Feds and the direction of the country here) If half the citizens in your state still worhip Obama, you're not going to be getting any revolution going. And you CERTAINLY are not going to get it because the Feds pass an assault weapons ban again pretty much like we had last time.

OK. Let's go a little further. If the economy tanks, which, of course, every third grader now claims will happen, AND if the military sees its power eroding as cuts are made, AND if the military brass were willing to violate their oaths of office and the Constitution and turn against the Feds in support of the states, then the government could fall, and in its place would be a military dictatorship.

Not exactly the revolution all those folks had in mind.
edit on 1/14/2013 by schuyler because: grevious spelling issues



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


You still trying? As much as you detest it this thread, and our opinions, aren't going anywhere.

Sorry to burst your little bubble.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
All this talk of a “revolution” or a “civil war” is just extreme rhetoric with no substance.

It’s an assault weapons ban.

There wasn’t a Civil war when Clinton brought in a law similar to this in 1994 and it won’t happen this time.

Still have fun with your “Red Dawn” fantasies.


Why do you assume this only has to do with guns?

Yes it's timely, but rights have slowly been diminishing ever since 9/11 and people have noticed.

People are becoming desperate due to the polluted environment we find ourselves in.
You think a civil war is about one idea? It's about a multitude of problems conjoining into one violent fight..



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by xedocodex
I'm not asking anyone to name individuals, notice I have not used any names in any of my posts. Who is the enemy, neighbor, politician, government employee, President, anyone who disagrees with you?


The underlined portion a direct lie. You specifically asked for names, and used "Piers Morgan" and "Bob Costas" directly in your original post's question.

Dishonesty isn't going to help anything; so no need to attempt to whitewash your attempt now.


You are correct, I did use their names. They are celebrities, no one is going to break your door down for talking abou them.

But they were used as an example, not for someone to claim a direct threat to them. Would you be more comfortable if I said "pro-gun control media and celebrities"?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
reply to post by Kryties
 


There is nothing reasonable or logical about asking people to break forum rules, and break laws by posting direct threats against the lives of "named" individuals and/or groups/agencies.


Then they should ban all talk/discussion of revolution and civil war.

Because for most logical people, when someone says a Revolution or Civil War is close to starting, the next question is "against who?"



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Good answer mate, thank you for taking the time to actually respond with an intelligent and well thought out post.

Star for you.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join