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.


The government WANTS a revolution, DONT FUEL THE HATE

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:57 AM

Originally posted by T4NG0

Originally posted by iwilliam

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Cold, DEAD,


Who the heck you think you're kidding?


OP is not saying to give up your guns... OP is saying not to fan the flames of hatred more than we have.... OP is saying that there may be a plot to instigate a kind of "revolutionary action" thus enabling them to strip us of ALL our rights. I think you should re-think the message.

They are already stripping us of all our rights...I think you should open your eyes and realize what you just wrote.

I know exactly what I wrote. My eyes are wide, fully aware (and deeply breathing

So if they have stripped all our rights, what are you still doing talking? How are you posting anything which might be seen as even vaguely anti-establishment, anti-control on an internet message board? Did you leave the house yesterday or today? Did you have to stop at some govt checkpoints and show your papers, and rights to travel? Have you handed over your whole paycheck, or worked for some meal tickets today?

They may be trying to further erode our rights, but I am really not convinced that extremist or violent action is the answer. I think that would give them the excuse for a full lockdown.

If you disagree, why don't you tell me what other plausible way the scenario of a revolt might play out, which doesn't involve taking one step forward, only to be forced three backward at the point of a gun?

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by TheNewRevolution
You spit in the face of the Founding Fathers every time you stall. People just like to make excuses because they are no longer men. They are too happy with their oppressed material lives, why would anyone fight in a revolution anyway? Well some of us believe in more than that. And for some of us who recognize the factors, we know that revolution is the path to freedom, just as it was over 200 years ago.

Then why aren't you marching on washington with a band of buddies and some guns, Mr Internet Provocateur? Why aren't you out there, using force (violence, from the tone of your post) to fight for your freedom?

Maybe you could try answering my last question in the post above this.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Kargun
I'm so sick of these posts and threads saying "don't give the government what they want, don't (insert any action here), just wait"

We did that on 911
We did that on JFK
We did that when our leaders gave the banks our children's money


I will be doing all I can too stop the actions of a government owned by the elite.

You can sit back and wait, and wait, and wait while we work harder and longer for less and less, lose our rights, and soon become an enemy of the state for standing up to tyranny.

Anyone who tells you not to take action IS the problem.

No one is saying not to take action. We are saying not to take extremist, violent action. Unless you have an army that can whoop theirs, no question, such an attempt will only lead to us being beaten further down, and having more of our rights stripped.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:16 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

You mention the term "Republic" in your statements quite a few times. We are supposed to be a REPUBLIC, yes, but we are not. We are now a Representative Democracy, a term never outlined in our Constitution.

You mention the majority winning out and that is exactly the point. The difference being in a Democracy the minority has no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. This is NOT the way our government is supposed to be run and the Founding Fathers made this point EXTREMELY clear through various quotes, letters, and other writings at the time.

Yet we have a Democracy, a government of mob rule, such a thing that the Founders feared. Now the government uses the mob for their benefit, brainwashing and swaying them in ways that were never foreseen. What was foreseen, however, is how Democracy and mob rule always leads to corruption and ultimately tyranny.

A revolution is necessary, not to continue the ideals of Democracy, but to restore the REPUBLIC for which we are supposed to stand. You seem to see it still as a left versus right game and that a revolution would result in the revolutionaries killing people - but why would they? What purpose would they have against the people? The target is the federal government.

Last but not least you mention 1/10th of the population in favor of violent revolution. If that is an accurate tally than I am a happy man. That would give us roughly 30 million supporters across the United States with roughly 10 million of them fit for duty. That outnumbers the entire US Armed Forces 10 to 1 including both actives and reserves, and that is assuming every single soldier would fire upon Americans and wouldn't be a part of the revolution themselves. We DO have an army that can WHOOP theirs.

Support is growing. They know it. I have a strong feeling that this gun registry will pass and it is the first step towards making sure that it DOESN'T happen.

People need to start forming into small groups, coming up with contingency plans, and being prepared. Most of all they need to hide their weapons, not abide by unconstitutional edicts, and soon - the revolution will come because waiting is the last thing we need to do at this juncture.

We've done enough waiting, any more and the life support will be pulled and it will be too late.
edit on 25-1-2013 by TheNewRevolution because: Added line.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Acidtastic
Anarchy will never work, but there needs to be a transtional period between this old dead system, and something new. (not proposing to know what that is btw, I just know that this is all messed up)

You realize over half these internet revolutionarys are actually wanting to fight to preserve the old dead capitalist system in place, right?
Obama tries to pass finance reform...omg, Obama is messin with capitalism..grab your gun billy!

So, ya...a civil war it wouldn't be..because first off, the revolutionarys need to section off and fight each other before they turn on the nation, else it will be some extreme liberals fighting extreme libertarians fighting corporatists fighting etc...

Then once a last man is standing from all the different "country my way or no way" types, they have a message...but for now, there isn't 2 sides.

Which is what I ultimately find amusing..lets say the revolutionarys packed away their hate towards each other long enough to topple a government...then what? with such diverse and extreme positions, they would have to either split the country up into little more than fiefdoms, or put in exactly the same dynamic as before...but with more democracy (more mob rule) and less representation/republic.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by TheNewRevolution

Bad phrasing..I meant 1/10th of a percent of the population...closer to about 3m. Still not a bad standing army, if it was an actual army..keep in mind, such numbers would be ultimately made up of young and old..some 85 year old gramps with failing eyesight and just wants to be general on the field isn't going to be very useful in such a battle.
Also, there is no organization, and just because someone would join the fight, doesn't mean they know how to even take the safety off a gun, much less go toe to toe with the us armed forces...or even a backwoods town cop.

In regards to the democracy/republic/rep demo discussion.
I would suggest we are a representative constitutional democracy actually. My personal view matters not. however enough of us can elect our rep to bring forth our concerns..and within the constitutional framework can get them addressed.

A republic however encompasses many things, but the bigger difference between the republic and a RCD would be how one gets appointed to a position overall. In a republic, that could be anything from voted in, to appointed through a test, to cabinet appointments. a RCD means people vote elect in.

So even on those grounds its a bit of a hybrid.

I think the complexity of politics angers people overall. it takes a considerable amount of effort to understand the system, but ultimately the system does work and is overall the best form of government we have to choose from to date..(not the best of all time...frankly, its the best of a bad lot). I do also worry a bit about more and more democracy creeping into our nation. I think this is why we have a supreme court though...should government officials try to go offsides and do things outside of the border, it will be pushed back...human nature to grab beyond the office your in..and we have systems for those instance.

Again, not perfect..but it is what it is.

The argument you make is that people are not happy with it...therefore revolt to change it
If actions are measured outside of are acting as one would in a democracy.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:58 PM
After reading all 4 pages of this thread this is the sentiment I get from it, "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't." Personally, I'd rather die trying to fight for the right thing then to stand back and let the government take take take. I'm a veteran of the U.S. Army so I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and the way I see it, standing up to this government is doing exactly that.

Also if a revolution kicks off, I'm sure it will start out small but will gain momentum like a snowball rolling downhill. People will wake up and come out of the woodwork to fight for what is right. The only way that the government could get a lid on it is if they absolutely stamp out the first uprising with such lethality and effectiveness that it scares any other would be uprisers into inaction.

However if the revolution starts to gain momentum then there is nothing the government can do to stop it. It will be a long and bloody one. Think of it this way, if the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan can continue to evade capture and pester our troops for going over ten years now by hiding in the desert and mountains, what makes you think that the government is going to be more successful against a population that is made up of veterans that they trained to fight and can hideout in the vast American wilderness? Even the people who aren't veterans train on their weapons constantly by going hunting or to shooting ranges on the regular. It is also the case that the majority of red states (where most of the pro gun crowd is located) are located in this vast American wilderness.

Another point to consider, how many active duty soldiers in the US are willing to fire on their countrymen? How many would desert the military in favor of fighting the just case? I'm sure among those deserters would be people who'd bring military equipment as well.

In conclusion do not write off a revolution because the military outguns the opposition. History is filled with many accounts of a smaller force overcoming a larger force. So if the government IS trying to incite a revolution then we should give them exactly what they wished for and see how it works out for them.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

You are correct. There is no organization. Organization get shut down in a heart beat as soon as it is recognized. Even the godfathers of ATS fear organization and what it would bring them which is why they outlaw it here. Everyone knows big brother doesn't want organization but when someone finally gets the gull to actually do it, I don't think there is anyone stopping that force.

Regardless of what we are as a government, the minority is no longer recognized. There are rules passed, daily, by the throng of majority support that suppress the rights of the minority. This is never supposed to be within the boundaries of the government to do, yet the majority have empowered this government to do so and thus have brought about tyranny by majority.

How it it right, in a country of 311 million people to say if 156 million feel marijuana should be illegal, yet 155 million feel the opposite, how is it right that said minority gets shunned in the laws that follow? It isn't. In a true Constitutional Republic there would be no laws that follow. The people that disagree with marijuana wouldn't use it and be around it, the people that accepted it would. It is that simple.

That is the concept that should be accepted as law in its entirety. While some regulations are made in the name of safety of others, which are acceptable, thousands upon thousands more are made in the name of protecting us from ourselves apparently, or decreeing what the mob feel is the best response and course of action to any given situation. True freedom is being able to do what you want so long as you don't hurt other people, in turn preventing them from doing what they want.

Our government is far from the best. The best for those in power maybe. The best for the majority who fall in line. But as for all people, including the minority, the Constitutional Republic needs to be restored. To do that people need to organize. First in small groups so that the government can do nothing. Then together, in mass, to take back and restore the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

You nailed it. Seems common sense is fleeting around here. So many three letter agencies work 24/7 to put a stop to any sort of revolution before it goes down and yet - the Government WANTS us to revolt?

What kind of silly circular logic is this. You people who think the Government wants us to revolt need to go read a good article on logical thinking. "TPTB" want SLAVES not a revolution. They want you to believe a Revolution isn't an answer, so you'll never attempt one and thus continue to be a slave. They want you to be compliant. They want you to not rock the boat.

If you do any of the above, it takes power away from the "TPTB" and that power is influence and money, something which, if the whole "Powers that Be Conspiracy" is true they worked EXCEPTIONALLY hard to achieve. Why would they put out disinformation to disrupt a framework that works so exceedingly well - as evidenced by the lunacy in the OP.

edit on 25-1-2013 by zeeon because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by iwilliam

We do have an army that can whoop our Military. It's called 300 million gun owning American's and our militias.
Lest ye forget - our Military is a VOLUNTEER force. Every time we won an actual major war (and one we lost, vietnam) we had to institute a draft.

Now imagine a volunteer military fighting a ground occupation against 300 million people....

Yeah - no. Sorry not gonna happen, never will happen until such a time where our Military is about a 100 million deep (and maybe not even then).
edit on 25-1-2013 by zeeon because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:59 PM
reply to post by TheNewRevolution

The problem is rarely things you speak of...most (sane and average intelligence or above) people think as such..what I do in my home that effects me and me only is nobody elses concern, such as the example you made.

The issue always then falls in taxation and programs...because for some reason the liberty minded person such as yourself taking the rational stance of leave me alone also has a curious non-helpful view of the world..meaning leave your neighbor alone also...even if they are asking for help.

And that is where libertarianism goes from mainstream super popular views to total collapse...because as humans, as a society, and a civilization, it is our desire and responsibility to help and progress the entire country into greatness. This is also the murky area of the constitution and the part that causes the most arguments and grief.
The whole brothers keeper stuff.

I think a new movement is needed. personal liberty minded, but also people that don't mind spending a few extra bucks to ensure the poor person is fed, or the homeless guy has a place to crash...the person barely making enough cash to pay rent has health insurance, etc..
Not sure how popular it would be in the current environment..maybe wildly so, maybe doomed to failure, but the theory is sound.
If everyone is chipping in, then everyone prospers.
I am not about punishing the rich or any of that nonsense, but then again, I also see that in todays centralized corporations and the outstanding wealth disparity that is going on, the system as is, is simply unsupportable in the long run. I am still formulating my opinion based on this..but I reject the 1840s mindset of anyone can be rich if they try simply holds no truth in todays reality.

So, there are issues...big issues, and people...everyday people will clash like mad based on their philosophy.

You presented the most simplistic argument..don't you love liberty and being able to take showers without being watched type presentation..arguably a strawman...but you didn't hit on the actual issues of the "sides". Taxes, wealth disparity, environmental regulations, etc..aka, the stuff that actually seperates us.

So until you do..then I would venture to say you don't really have a outlook that you choose to reveal..and that is least with the current government, I know where they stand.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:02 PM

Originally posted by zeeon
reply to post by iwilliam

We do have an army that can whoop our Military. It's called 300 million gun owning American's and our militias.
Lest ye forget - our Military is a VOLUNTEER force. Every time we won an actual major war (and one we lost, vietnam) we had to institute a draft.

Now imagine a volunteer military fighting a ground occupation against 300 million people....

Yeah - no. Sorry not gonna happen, never will happen until such a time where our Military is about a 100 million deep (and maybe not even then).
edit on 25-1-2013 by zeeon because: (no reason given)

The population of the US is about 310 million
Your saying infants will be crawling around with M4's fighting the government?
I think not
Also, keep in mind, plenty of people are not wanting the whole libertarian utopia...
I think your numbers are slightly off
I would suspect, at full force..totally full force with every single person disgruntled enough to shoot innocent elected officials and authority figures in a civil are talking in the thousands...and from that group, you will have people aged 12 to 100 with varying degrees of skills and motives...most of them being little more than target practice for our armed service men and women.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

Recent article by CNN says -

47 -- Percentage of Americans who told Gallup in 2011 that they had at least one gun at home.


310 million -- Total number of nonmilitary firearms in the United States as of 2009.


Compare to our Military strength -

Active personnel 1,456,862
Reserve personnel 1,458,500


Which represents a grand total of 2,915,362 Military IF the reserves were called into service.
Contrast that approx. 3 million Military to 47 Percent of 311,591,917 (total population of the United States as of 2011) which is 146,448,200 who own a gun.

Even if you subtract the number of active duty military and reserves from that 47 percent, you still have approx 146 Million armed civilians against a Military force of approx. 3 Million. Not to mention that the civilian populace owns 310 Million guns - damn near arming every man, woman and child with at least one weapon.

You might say that since the Military has access to advanced weaponry, drones, fighters and heavy artillery that they could overcome those numbers...and in a stretch MAYBE they could. However, putting down an armed revolution is a ground occupation - not a strike operation. What good is a country full of people who are pissed off and live in ruins? That's counter productive for both sides.

Now, if I were a betting man, I'd say them odds aren't good for putting down a Revolution should one happen. I believe the odds come out to be approx. 50:1 odds in favor of the civilian populace.

I believe I have made my point.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 08:37 PM
reply to post by SaturnFX

I don't touch on "sides" because I tend not to take them. When it comes to public safety on issues, and I mean REAL public safety, not some of the things passed off as it today - I am all for it. I am also for some business regulations to prevent things such as monopolies and to allow freedom of small businesses. Taxes should be set rate, a consumption tax, something fair where each person pays their fair share and people who practice minimalist lives have minimalist taxes.

Everything else falls under the realm of "it shouldn't be touched by government." The idea that charity can't exist in a society of liberty is a bleak outlook, and it is from the outreach of personal citizenry, not the federal government that I have seen the best help given in the forms of helping those who need it. Handing out paychecks to someone for the rest of their life does not teach them anything but dependency - it doesn't do a damn thing to actually "help" them.

I am 100% liberty minded. I don't judge people based on what they choose to do today, even if it is currently illegal by "government" standards. As I said, so long as something doesn't hurt another all should be fair game. I've given food to the homeless. I volunteer. I have attempted to join the Peace Corp. I am a member of the local Red Cross. Because I believe in the individual does not mean that I do not believe in helping those less fortunate and I am sure it is the same case for all those in support of true individual liberties.

Your "new movement" is already alive and well. There are plenty freedom loving Americans who don't live off of the teet of government and who believe in liberty who help others everyday. They tend not to gloat or make a stink about it like Uncle Sam does though and that is the way of American exceptionalism.

My outlook is simple. For those who aren't into the "libertarian utopia", that is fine. But that does not give you the right, nothing does, to impose your will upon anyone else. That makes you a wannabe despot, a king of the majority because you will never be the king in charge. Anyone who is against libertarianism is fine by me, but anyone who practices control over another can go to hell.

Under a libertarian system, a Constitutional Republic, it wouldn't matter what issues divided us or not. We would learn to accept each others differences and live with it - not attempt to get our legislators to outlaw what we didn't like. This is the major difference between where we are and where we should be. Anyone who can't see the flaw in this must have some inkling in their brain for control over others and thus there is no argument that I can give that would ever change their mind.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:12 PM
Speaking of provocateurs, and the govt wanting to instigate some kind of extreme action from the public as a means of further control:

Apparently "Anonymous" just released something saying that we should have a revolution.... or "Civil War" to overthrow the government

I find that particularly relevant, especially when considering that some have speculated that Anonymous may actually be a front started by a government intelligence agency. I've heard a number of people speculate about a CIA origin / backing, but then again the CIA tends to take a lot of blame/credit for all kinds of stuff.

Either way, both of those facts looked at in the context of the other, makes this call by Anonymous for action to overthrow the government seem perhaps a little suspicious.

ATS Thread: Anonymous Calls for Civil War to Remove US Government

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 11:50 PM

Originally posted by zeeon
reply to post by iwilliam

We do have an army that can whoop our Military. It's called 300 million gun owning American's and our militias.
Lest ye forget - our Military is a VOLUNTEER force. Every time we won an actual major war (and one we lost, vietnam) we had to institute a draft.

Now imagine a volunteer military fighting a ground occupation against 300 million people....

Yeah - no. Sorry not gonna happen, never will happen until such a time where our Military is about a 100 million deep (and maybe not even then).
edit on 25-1-2013 by zeeon because: (no reason given)

You have a reasonable point about the numbers-- assuming the actual numbers are the high. (One can hope.) However, I don't think you're looking at the big picture.

Those 300, or 30, or 3 million people... whatever the number is... and let's assume there are not only sufficient arms, but also sufficient ammunition for all of them (and with all the stuff I've been reading lately about ammo shortages, I have to wonder if that is really the case).... they will have many weapons. Hopefully many rifles, maybe some shotguns, and a whole mess of handguns. Let's even assume, for sake of our hypothetical scenario that some of these weapons can be converted to full auto.

On the other side we have the US armed forces. It is a smaller army, and maybe even some soldiers would be unwilling to participate on that side of the hypothetical war. However, pressure from threat of authority can be a very powerful thing. Some people are bound to look at the situation, look at the odds, and decide they are better off... safer, on that side. Self preservation is also a very powerful motivator. Although that army would no doubt be smaller, they will also have far, far more hardware.

They will have fully automatic weapons and no shortage of ammunition. But even better they will not only have bullet-proof vests, but they will have have large munitions, and rocket launchers, and explosives, and tanks..... and let's not stop there (because you know they won't) they will have fighter jets and they will have bombers, and helicopters... they will have an entire Air Force (not to mention a navy for what that might be worth in such a conflict) and they will of course have Chemical, Biological and NUCLEAR weapons.

Would they be reluctant to use NBC weapons on their own citizens, or in their own country? Maybe they would hesitate. Then again, as I said... self preservation can be a powerful motivator. Some of these people would fight to stay just in power... but if a true war were to arise, I'm pretty sure they would believe it to be a life or death situation. And when one is fully out for self-- more so than their fellow man, country, etc... unleashing a biological agent, or using a nuke on an opposing army no matter who it was composed of, is probably a "valid" option for you.

Even if you believe that they believe the risk of a nuke or bio-agent is too strong, the right chemical agent could be employed with far less risk of contaminating the victors. The right chemical agent could take out a large city and then be cleaned up with teams, using other chemicals. In such a case the clean-up would take weeks, maybe months, even with teams... but the fight could be over very quickly.

In the right circumstances, hundreds of years ago, a smaller number of white men with black powder guns and horses could defeat a much greater army of natives, with lesser technology. This situation analogizes that, except the discrepancy in technological capability is far greater, IMO.

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:01 AM
There are 1,000 armed civilians per capita for every 1 cop or military personnel in the US - so we could take this country back in 5 seconds no make that 2 seconds & they know it.

1,000 to 1.

Hell they couldn't hold Baghdad - how the hell are they going hold the entire US????
Only if you let them!


posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 12:19 AM
reply to post by iwilliam

As a witness to military arms and technology I have to disagree. Most of the military weaponry and basic tech is available to the public and certain licensees, which means it is out there and floating around. Even more so, all of this military gear you are talking about is being held on civilian manned supply bases around the United States. For ever tank the military has in use at any given time, there are 10 of them parked somewhere and guarded by a small troop in the middle of the US.

Just down the road from me is a Stryker batallion National Guard housing that is base to 10 Strykers, and about 15 armed Humvees. On any given weekday there are 4 - FOUR National Guardsmen guarding that base at most. If you know what a Stryker is, you would know that when it comes to mobile ground weaponry and what they are outfitted with, they are probably the best thing you can have next to a tank in terms of firepower and defense.

I know of about 20 other similar depots, some of them thousands of times larger than that. I've done computer work on some of them and they are manned and guarded by a dozen guards at any given time for hundreds of vehicles and weapons systems.

So my point is, if a revolution does break out do you really think that the first priority is not going to be to procure better weapons if they don't already have them? And as I already made it out to you - it is a task that is not very difficult at all.

As for your high end weapons - your missiles, your fighters, your WMDs - useless. Any high yield weaponry would risk mass casualties of innocents and ANY innocent casualties would only increase the support of the revolution. The government is smarter then that. Unless they would somehow be able to single out only rebel forces and be sure about it, there is no chance whatsoever that they would be using anything other than high caliber guns and small arms explosives - the same things available to any joe shmoe.

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 08:40 AM

Originally posted by stuntmanbob
I agree.

Any idiot might have noticed that terrorism only makes the government stronger.

They are more scared of states pushing to secede.

Ideas, not guns.

Dear Obama, Let me worry about dealing with terrorists by allowing me to have and carry guns. thank you

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 09:05 AM
I do agree with not starting a premature revolution but when do we finally say enough is enough? When we are all living in huge prisons that look like cities but nobody has any rights or freedoms? When everyone is paying 75% of their income in taxes? When the poor are left to die in the street but the wealthy politicians grow fat in their heavily guarded mansions?

...And if we wait to take action how long do we wait before it's too late?

I think the OP is a veiled attempt at disparaging Alex Jones and pro 2nd amendment people. I agree with peace first but dont tell people to give up the fight before it's even started.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in