When is armed resistance to the government acceptable?

Americans will never resort to armed resistance as long as they get to keep their guns.

Armed revolution would be stupid at this point.
Real change will only come when enough people refuse to go to work.

originally posted by: Quauhtli
It's interesting thinking about this BLm fiasco in terms of your question.. The govt has been very quiet about what is going on in Oregon right now.. Under Obamas reign it was quiet about it in 2014 as well..

If Trump were to be elected, I wonder how the govt would react to this sort of thing... Probably completely different if you ask me..

My answer would be after the govt makes a really big mistake, one along the lines of storming into a situation like the one in Oregon right now and killing a bunch of citizens.. Then it would become more acceptable than it is now at least.. If it did happen, it could easily become a runaway situation.. There are a lot of Americans who are itching for that fight, even though it probably wouldn't have anywhere close to the outcome they're looking for..

When you say BLM fiasco what do you mean?

a reply to: Puppylove

I suppose only after all people who feel oppressed put as much energy as possible into reducing their need on outside provision.

The lobbyists and special interests get their money from the consumer. We are far from where we could be in terms of local production of the things we need. Non-local production begats centralization, centralization begats loss of control. You're still in control, you've just surrogate'd it through your wallet.

I put up a thread here on ATS on the historic reasons for the American Revolution and did some comparisons. Here is the link . . .

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

I have only read the first page of comments in this thread, but wanted to post this link. I'm going to finish reading this thread now.

From the behavior of some apparently whenever your party loses an election.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck
The people will never win a war of arms, it would be fruitless and would play right into their hands. The last thing the people should do is to attempt an armed battle against TPTB.

We have a much mightier weapon. People that have no trouble believing that a small boy could bring down a mighty giant, with nothing more than a slingshot and a stone, find it impossible to believe that they have the power to bring down a whole government with the few coins they have in their pocket.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I almost wish I could cross post our discussion from the 1775 thread.

.02 cent line LOL

a reply to: Bone75
Refuse to work and refuse to buy from any big businesses.

Barter among themselves.

If we want to scare the crap out of our government, show them that we can work and function as a cohesive unit together without any help from them.

If we don't do anything, we will end up homeless, in government bread lines, and killing each other.

If we are going to have a collapse, what better chance do we have of surviving it, than if we are the ones that are controlling it?

Well Overdue, But what has kept Americans in their homes and not raiding Washington is #1 The Media #2 Social Security and Welfare #3 NO BALLS

Until THE PEOPLE grow some balls, nothing will EVER happen

That being said...Say goodbye to the American Dream, The Sheeple Have NO BALLS

originally posted by: damwel
From the behavior of some apparently whenever your party loses an election.

Or your team loses (or wins) a basketball championship.

a reply to: Puppylove

I am against armed actions. Period.

Before anyone want's to start an armed revolution consider these two points:


1. what about a peaceful way? Start reading Gandhi for instance, he made India independent from the Brits in a peaceful way.

2. The US has a violent police force and the biggest army worldwide.

Which leaves you another two options: either you are suicidal or you go back to option 1.

We crossed the Rubicon a while back.
I keep watching for signs others around me are waking up.
Instead, they just drink more and pretend nothing has changed for the worse.

originally posted by: Puppylove
With recent events, this becomes an important question. Civil unrest is a growing problem in the US, and with things like the patriot act, bank bailouts, and so much more, it seems like an issue that will continue to keep growing.

With a government controlled not by the people but outside forces in the form of corporations and special interests. The legal ways of fighting against corruption are becoming more and more futile as time moves on. Will frustration created by this cause more armed civil unrest in the future?

Our nations founders made it clear that there are and will be times when revolution is necessary. That such was the case is built into the constitution. We even have the second amendment protecting the citizens rights to remained and armed organized populace partly for this express purpose.

Now I'm not saying we should take up arms yet, but I want to know when it moves from being automatically considered to be terrorism to take up arms to actually full filling the rights and duty set forth by our forefathers to protect the citizenry from a government that's no longer for the people.

This seems to be and important line to define. When is it terrorism, and when is it our duty to each other in defense of house and country?

There comes a time where protesting, lawsuits, and other less violent means become laughable to a truly entrenched political force, and are about as effective as spinning in circles screaming "I'm a fairy lalalala!!!!"

When is revolution not only acceptable but the duty of every citizen in defense of the foundations the country was built upon? At what point do those in power cross the line, and at what point does the futility of peaceful means of resistance require taking up arms?

Are you of the belief armed resistance and revolution is never acceptable? Where do you draw the line?

When the armed resistors can outnumber and defeat the current gov't/oppressors...

I don't think we are close to being near the time to take up arms yet. The Oregon episode is just an isolated incident at this point and time. Same thing happened in the same place back in 2014? 2013? Whenever. But fact is, there seems to be a problem there with certain people who just want to pick a fight with the Government (right or wrong) - Its how I see it. I think people are getting too caught up in the moment. Now when what they are seeing becomes widespread, then we'll have an issue. But here in Texas, there aren't many (if any) of those kinds of problems right now.

The first revolution was fought bc the colonists got fed up with paying 15% income taxes. I'll pay over 50%.

Every person who's taken an oath to defend this country has failed. You really believe America still exists? Long gone.

a reply to: mikemelo6141

Every person who's taken an oath to defend this country has failed. You really believe America still exists? Long gone.

I wish I could say you are wrong, but I can't

I'm going to say there have been successful movements "by the people", especially in Civil Rights Equality. Even mass support "by the people" in protection against Westboro Church.

Therefore, I really don't think we are at a place that armed resistance is OK.

The armed resistance groups seem to be just a handful of people who think they have some kind of entitlement. They don't get "by the people" support, because majority does not support what they're doing or what they think they are entitled to.

a reply to: svetlana84

1. what about a peaceful way? Start reading Gandhi for instance, he made India independent from the Brits in a peaceful way.

We can indeed take a lesson from Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

The lesson is that the people can win, even if they loose the battle. That a commitment of sacrifice may need to be made if you hope to gain your freedom. That people have to understand that being enslaved, and bound by chains, is not living, it is a mere illusion of life.

Gandhi’s act defied a law of the British Raj mandating that Indians buy salt from the government and prohibiting them from collecting their own. His disobedience set off a mass campaign of non-compliance that swept the country, leading to as many as 100,000 arrests. In a famous quote published in the Manchester Guardian, revered poet Rabindranath Tagore described the campaign’s transformative impact: “Those who live in England, far away from the East, have now got to realize that Europe has completely lost her former prestige in Asia.” For the absentee rulers in London, it was “a great moral defeat.”

All protest actions, campaigns and demands have both instrumental and symbolic dimensions. Different types of political organizing, however, combine these in different proportions.

In conventional politics, demands are primarily instrumental, designed to have a specific and concrete result within the system. In this model, interest groups push for policies or reforms that benefit their base. These demands are carefully chosen based on what might be feasible to achieve, given the confines of the existing political landscape. Once a drive for an instrumental demand is launched, advocates attempt to leverage their group’s power to extract a concession or compromise that meets their needs. If they can deliver for their members, they win.

It is all in how you play your cards. What we have to sacrifice is so small in the long run. A few creature comforts, and a bunch of items that will end up in a landfill in less than a year, anyway.

We just have to stop waiting for someone to rescue us.

We have the power.

We have the leverage.

For now.

The level of deception is so high, nobody knows whats going on. Its hard to rebel against that. Also plebs have a hard time organizing.