Talk of Armed Revolution on ATS Inappropriate

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by whatukno

I think your scared of the personal responsibility that would come under a constitutional government, thus fear a return to one.

You're not scared some dictator will take over, you're scared that all your pet programs will get shut down and handed back over to the public where they belong.

Socialist security - gone.
medicare - gone
no child left behind? - gone and double gone
federal gun, alcohol, and tobacco laws? - gone
federal drug laws - gone

all gone - under a constitutional government.


To the public school indoctrinated masses, the thought of this is terrifying.

They have been made dependent and now fear the responsibility that comes with such freedoms.

ALL GONE! That would be amazing. People would react like crazys taken off their favorite drugs. You'd have to hide out for a while till they all killed themselves.

reply to post by TheBorg


A Little Rebellion Now and Then Is A Good Thing - Thomas Jefferson.

American federalism will fail. The vast economic and budget problems shows the state will fall. The United States will devolve into small unions and independent states.

Due to the political system in America, it is difficult for a third party to rescue the nations and serve the citizens. Lobby groups, think tanks, private finance and political war machine - of both parties - prevent anyone from outside taking power.

reply to post by moonzoo7
[It's illegal to call for the armed over-throw of our government, as well as for advancing the idea of killing the President. We are a Nation of Laws for a reason]

I just wanted to point out that it is not illegal in America for the people to talk about, plan, or even participate in armed revolution. The constitution gives us the right if the government becomes tyranical.

While I currently do not support a armed revolution, it is important for the government to fear us, not for us to fear them. Thomas Jefferson actually said this.

By people venting on a site like this it allows people to see how they feel, and believe me, government officials see it. It allows them to see the feelings of the people and can make changes without violence.

When people stop talking and start acting is when you need to worry, if you do not agree with the treads, simply don't read them and you won't have a problem

So is the Constitution being ignored... you must not be American. because so many of fore fathers have died in lands far away just to keep that GD Piece of Paper... thank you, Veterans. now its our time to push back the Fascism and bring back the beacon.

reply to post by infinite


The citizens don't need rescuing. They need awakened!! Once they wake up to the truth, and see what they've allowed to transpire, they will enact whatever countermeasures are required to ensure their future safety. It's the hallmark of any evolving nation.

There are many well-documented timelines that outline how a particular political system will evolve and devolve, and the rough estimates of how long it will take for each. At this moment, I don't have one on reference, but they do exist. The Republic seems to be the closest thing we've found to actual rule of the People. To free the People of the oppressive thumb of the elites however, will take a bit more evolving.

First and foremost, the system of economy will need to disappear. As the old phrase goes, "Those with the money make the rules." If the money is taken out of the picture, and the People are left to supply the necessities for each other, then the group will evolve at a much faster rate, and there will be no one in power, as power is dispersed equally amongst every person. There will still need to be a need for all of the positions currently being held, but the pay structures would have to be vastly different.

Regardless, the point here is, and always should be, that it is the DUTY and RIGHT of the People to effect a replacement of any representative that's not performing to the public's best interests. Sometimes, that takes the use of force to get resolved, and that should not be shunned as an option, as without it, the People become powerless to stop the march towards total despotism. Should that happen, and America goes the way of many oppressive regimes before it, then there is NO way out but the violent route.

We're not there just yet, but we're walking that line very closely, as can be evidenced by the many threads here on ATS, including this one. I personally, have heard many people that I speak with on a daily basis, both young and old, talking about how they think that it's high time to go resolve this the old fashioned way.

The spirit of resistance lives on, but is there a way to harness it to effectively accomplish the same thing, without the use of force?

That, my friend, is the question that We The People grapple with at the moment. How do we best wrest the power back from those that stole it from us while we slept?

TheBorg

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by TheBorg

 

Due to the political system in America, it is difficult for a third party to rescue the nations and serve the citizens. Lobby groups, think tanks, private finance and political war machine - of both parties - prevent anyone from outside taking power.

I would not say difficult, I would almost say impossible.

Did you see what happened in our off year Congressional campaign this year?

A conservative running on an Independant ticket, was beating both the Dem and Repub candidates. The Repub saw she could not win so dropped out and backed the Dem.

Talk about COLLUSION of political corruption! That right there was the ABSOLUTE sign the Dem and Repub parties have nothing but CONTEMPT, for the American People.

They will do ANYTHING, to stop the people from destroying their power structure.

reply to post by Anti-Evil


Please don't speak of that Charter of Freedom as a "GD piece of paper". That's extremely disrespectful to those that shed their blood to give us the freedoms we have.

I'm not telling you that you can't say that, but I just want to caution you on how a statement like that will be received by many of us Citizens.

TheBorg

reply to post by TheBorg


I think he was referring to Bushes quote their Borg. I am not positive, but 98% though.


Edit to add-instead of another comment I will just respond here. Yeah, sometimes he can be crass, but he means well. GW became a tyrant to me when I saw the video of him saying that. I never liked his policies but he became despicable to me when I saw it.


[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


That's not the way that I read it right now... If that is the case though, I apologize. In cases like this, humor is not something that can be best expressed through text. One has to be very careful how they express themselves textually, as to ensure that no one misconstrues what they actually mean...

Just saying.

TheBorg

Maybe I haven't seen the threads to which you refer...but the idea of a revolt or revolution, at least the ones I have seen, have been related to the government (whomever is in charge) taking the rights of the people and/or making paths toward taking power over the people. While our right to vote is still there, it sometimes appears like "the powers that be" would love to find a way to change that. If our freedoms are taken away, what choice would we have other than revolution? Our current government already ignores us, calls us names and laughs when we attempt to organize. I realize that it may be a long way off, and many Presidents away, but we are unquestionably moving in that direction rather in the other.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone made a real attempt on the President's life (whomever it may be at the time) if this trend continues. We would become the terrorists in order to restore the freedoms we hold dear. What we really need is someone, something to unite us...and if that is a government gone insane...the future will likely include revolt.

Sometimes it appears that the only way to correct this government...a government that places itself and it's interests above those of the people, and a government that has it so ingrained into how it functions...is to over-throw that government. How else can you change something so corrupt?

reply to post by mnemeth1

I think your scared of the personal responsibility that would come under a constitutional government, thus fear a return to one.

Personal responsibility? I have been responsible for myself sense I was 17. Don't talk to me about personal responsibility.

I work a full time job.

I pay taxes.

I don't collect welfare, food stamps, or other handouts.

I pay my bills.

I pay my child support.

So please, don't talk to me about being afraid of personal responsibility.

You're not scared some dictator will take over, you're scared that all your pet programs will get shut down and handed back over to the public where they belong.

What I am afraid of is the inevitable genocide and mass killings the right will start to do if they have absolute unchecked power.

Socialist security:

Are you going to tell the WWII vets and the elderly poor that they are going to be cut off?

medicare:

Nope, I guess your just going to let them die with "dignity"

no child left behind:

Yep, might as well get rid of those public schools altogether, if your not rich enough to afford to give your children a private education, well, they wouldn't have contributed enough to society anyway.

federal gun, alcohol, and tobacco laws:

Here, let's give Timmy a 9 mm a bottle of jack and a pack of pall mall's and send him off to work. (cause he doesn't have to go to that socialist school anymore, so better get him to the factory)

federal drug laws:

Oh thats good, yea, thats what we need, legal crack!

all gone - under a constitutional government.:

have fun with that.

I know, also get rid of public utilities, roads, oh might as well get rid of those pension plans for cops, Unions and minimum wage too. That way everyone can be employed for 50 cents an hour. Hey that will get our jobs back. If employers don't have to worry about OSHA requirements or other federal employment laws, they can treat workers like slime and there would be nothing employees could do about it.

YAY!

[edit on 1/4/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by Majic


Thank you for that great explanation! As I said, I was stating my opinion, but I have found that I don't always have all the information, and therefore cannot make an educated call.

I have seen posts and threads that I believe skirt the line so close that it would be a hard call for the moderation team. I'm glad you put so much effort in calling it as fairly and with as much benefit to the member as you do.

Thanks again, Majic. I really appreciate it.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

The Declaration is not law.

Our Constitution is.

Your idea of natural law is a strange one.

Maybe, do us a favor, ask an animal about natural law.

Funny you should put it in those terms, because it shows that you have no idea that the Common Law is also referred to as Natural Law; Common Law is Natural Law. Supreme Court rulings of Common Law, such as the "Right to Travel Freely on public roads & to transport personal belongings" are all referred to as Natural Law & included in Common Law.

All living creatures on this planet have the Right to self-defense. Many are evolved naturally to exercise this Right; The lion has teeth & claws, the gazelle has its speed, the bird can fly away,etc. These are evolutionary (NATURALLY-derived) means to exercise the Right to Self-Defense. Humanity isn't blessed with many evolutionary advantages, but we have our evolved intelligence; We build tools to perform our natural tasks. Where we lack claws, we build weapons...To capture food, we have intelligence to set traps or rig up fishing lines & nets, etc. Just as all living creatures have a Right to Travel Freely, we do to. this is what is known as Natural Law...It's the way of Nature. You may as well call it the Laws of Physics, because the very existence of this world, all life & the universe depend upon the Laws of Nature to even exist.

With the Bill of Rights as a part of the Constitution (they were ratified together, as a whole), the Rights enumerated lists some of our Natural Rights; The 9th Amendment confirms that the Rights listed within the Bill of Rights is not the entire list of our Rights. Rights are further enumerated under the Common Law...And expanded occasionally by Supreme Court rulings in accordance with Natural Law. By Natural Extension, the Constitution upholds the Common Law as the Supreme Law of the Land. The USA is the first occurrence in history when the nation was founded with Common Law as the Supreme Law of the Land; other nations have upheld Common Law from time to time, but not as the Supreme Law. The US Common Law is founded upon English Common Law, as evidenced by the Magna Carta of 1215, but England preferred enforcing Monarchy/Feudal Law over Common Law. What the US government upholds now is corporate/contract law & Roman Law, not Common Law...This is acting in Breech of Oath.

As We the People created the government (Preamble: We the People... ...ordain & establish this Constitution...), we also have the Natural Right to alter or abolish it as necessary to promote the Common Good. The problem with today's government is that it denies the Natural Law by refusing to obey the Constitution, even though all government Officers on all levels of government swear/affirm an Oath of Office to defend & uphold it. As they violate the Law & act in Breech of Oath, they must be removed from Office.

The concepts written in the Declaration are reflected in the Constitution for the purpose of establishing the Law & the government structure to uphold the Law. For example, in the Declaration of Independence (bold emphasis is mine):

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This is reflected in the Constitution & Bill of Rights, for this example, with the 1st Amendment Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances (to give notice that the government is not properly performing its duties & must make corrections). This is only one of many peaceful methods to bring the government back in line. The Bill of Rights also demands that the government refrain from doing certain things: "Congress shall make no law," "shall not be infringed," & the 9th & 10th Amendments.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Hey would you look at that so it does....

But what's this?

Funny that you should use a broken link...
And your quote from there mentions suppressing all authority from the British Crown. Gee, isn't that what the Declaration of Independence was doing in the first place?
And even after all of this, you still refuse to see the difference between peaceful rebellion & violent rebellion. You're not even trying to Deny Ignorance.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
who's the supreme judge of the world?

Why, none other than the Creator as He had set forth the Laws of Nature!
First paragraph of the Declaratoin of Independence:

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Rather than destroy the house that serves to protect you, you may want to do some interior decorating. I suggest you start a new political party and make the changes you desire. Ballots or bullets?

Political parties are the current bane of Constitution as it is...Politics has been rightly described as the "art of compromise," but there's no room for the "compromise" of the Laws of Nature. The goal is not bullets over ballots...The goal is to bring the government back in line with the Law. Bullets are the last resort & only in the purpose of defense. It seems you also have trouble comprehending the difference between peaceful revolution & violent revolution. Peaceful offense, violent defense against violence already initiated...Get it yet?

Originally posted by whatukno
Somehow I doubt that. Which has been the basis of my argument. I believe that it's not the real intention to revert the government back to it's roots, but to overthrow it, and instill a more oppressive government in it's place.

Then you fail to see the history of our Constitutional government as it was founded, is much different from the way it works now...It sounds like you really need to crack open some history books. Sure, the government had some problems, even early on, but was committed to the upholding of Natural Law & Natural Rights. Can you not see how big the difference is now, compared to then?

Even when the Founding Forefathers had to fight the War of Independence, they did it in defense...England had troops already stationed in the Colonies to enforce the oppression of Corporate Charters over the the actual Laws of Colonial Charters. England still kept sending troops; England was on the offense, the Colonies were on the defense..
Any such modern revolution must be conducted in the same way...In defense until the government is restored within Lawful boundaries.

Thomas Jefferson:

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Wedell Phillips:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.[/url]
This is what has been happening in OUR government, slowly & gradually for more than 100 years. The failing on the part of the People is that we've gone lax on our vigilance & the price for that is being paid now. But vigilance is reawakening as we gain a greater public awareness of the corruption in government. As the public increases our awareness, the State governments in turn are following...An ever-increasing number of States are opposing & lawfully nullifying Unconstitutional actions by the Federal government. States are nullifying Federal gun-restrictions, nullifying the federal Real ID (& its spin-offs, like the Pass ID) & generally exercising the States' 9th & 10th Amendment Rights.

----------Concluded Below------------

--------Concluded From Above------

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Did the US Deceleration of Independence appear on the British Parliament legislation? No. At the time of passing, the United States was still under British authority and the Continental Congress had no legal existence.

You really don't much history, do you? What about the Colonial Charters? The original Colonial Government was formed under these charters, but they were flatly ignored by the Crown...They were being taxed without having any voice in the government. That's what "Taxation without Representation" was all about. It was the King breaking his own Laws that led to this! The Continental Congress was formed after the war as a response to winning out over the King's oppression & aggression. Even then, it took the King a few years to officially recognize what was already a reality.

Originally posted by endisnighe
It was the argument over whether or not the States had sovereign rights, which they did have.

Many think and are correct in their position that the North was wrong.

Actually, the North was wrong. Look at the 10th Amendment; The Constitution only establishes a Union, but there's nothing that says that the national-level government must maintain the Union--Also, there's nothing in the Constitution that specifically denies the States from seceding from the Union. Read the 10th Amendment & logically go from there...
That very same 10th Amendment confirms that, aside from a very few specifically listed Sovereign Powers, that the States actually retain more Sovereignty than the Federal Government does!

Originally posted by infinite
reply to post by endisnighe

 

For some reason, American politicians do not believe in Constitutional Reform. In Europe, we do this about every decade to ensure our constitution is up to date and acceptable to the citizens of each respected nation.
Which is why there is numerous political debates over the US Constitution.

In a way, you're wrong...The Constitution contains the very terms & conditions required to keep itself updated; These conditions are a part of Supreme Court rulings based on Natural Law/Common Law & the terms of Amendment ratification. So anyone that tries to tell you that the constitution is "outdated," you know now that they're lying through their teeth! This is also not including the fact that all government Officers must swear/affirm the Oath of Office to obey it as it currently is.

Originally posted by infinite
Well, if the highest court in your nation declares otherwise, it is not law. Simple. If the Supreme Court does not recognise it as organic law, then you cannot argue.

The Supreme Court was never given any lawful authority to reject Law...None of the government Branches were granted the Power to interpret the Law. That is a presumption without backing by the Law that was assumed by the Supreme Court. As such, rendered invalid. As said before, it is the Law, whether or not the Supreme Court recognizes it or not.
The true Power of Law Nullification rests with the members of a court jury, not the court itself. When confronted with this, even the Supreme Court recognizes it (although loathing to admit it & certainly won't spread the truth around to the public). I think that, being in the UK (as stated junder your avatar), you're ascribing more to British Law than American Law...Our Law may have its roots from there, but definitely not the same thing.

Originally posted by TheBorg
reply to post by infinite

 

The citizens don't need rescuing. They need awakened!!

Truer words were never spoken...Oh, wait! Yes they have:

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

reply to post by whatukno

All you seem to talk about is a revolution that's going to throw away the Constitution, not restore it. Have you really been ignoring what's been said all this time? None of those socialist programs are within the lawful authority of the federal government to enact...That would be up to each State (& its own constitution) & the People, as per the 10th Amendment.

So after 18 pages of back and forth what would you do:

What would you do if you saw an armed group going towards DC?

What would you do if you heard a news story of a group of terrorists/gang members/fill-in-the-blank had been slaughtered en mass by the US military or even Capitol Police?

What would you do if there was a sudden roll out of new laws without an accompanying news story of a rebellion put down?

What would you do if you saw a task force drag away your neighbor?

What would you do if more vocal members of ATS just suddenly stopped posting and had no bans or warnings?

What would you do if you were stopped on the street to answer questions to a survey that seemed to ask questions of a patriotic nature?

What would you do if you suspected the interviewer to have a government job (police/DHS/FBI/CIA/etc)?

What would you do if when you came home there were officers raiding your house and they apologized and said they had the wrong address and were supposed to be raiding a drug house a few blocks away?

The whole discussion brings to mind a truck I saw in the 80's with "I hate Japs" spelled out in the black and gold stickers that you use to put your name on a mailbox. It was on the back window of the bed cap. The owner was a WWII vet. Probably lost a few buddies during the war in the Pacific Theater. At the time Japanese businesses were buying up many things in the US.

So was the guy a racist fool or just a man speaking his mind? How you answer that question may have some bering on how you answer the above questions, how you were educated and how you view those that express their dissent by speaking of revolution.

The funny thing about all those programs mentioned in a few posts, up until the past 100 years (give or take) this country ran without them. Personal wealth still grew. Politicians were still crooks. The difference was that people had pride in themselves, their families and their communities. People talked to their neighbors and undesired things were removed or changed. Heck, I even have heard tell that a few of them got together and defeated the mightiest military in the world a couple times.

As for myself, I would rather hear people talk about things I could care less about then have them not be able to talk at all. Even if it is sitting on a bus and having to listen to two women sitting behind me go on and on about purses, dresses and shoes.

But if you are looking for armed rebellion; give those two women guns and tell them to shut up about their shopping.


[edit on 4-1-2010 by Ahabstar]

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer
You really don't much history, do you? What about the Colonial Charters? The original Colonial Government was formed under these charters, but they were flatly ignored by the Crown...

The Colonial Charters have nothing to do with it. Rhode Island and Connecticut were the only two self-governing colonies before the first Continental Congress met. If I'm not mistaken, only the Virginia Assembly had any real authority.

Reason why the Continental Congress was formed.

They were being taxed without having any voice in the government. That's what "Taxation without Representation" was all about. It was the King breaking his own Laws that led to this!

Partly true. The colonialist wanted representation in the British parliament - not just at colonial level. The colonial subjects wanted to elect their own MP.

The Continental Congress was formed after the war

Ermm...not it wasn't. There were two during the war. The second met during the start of the American revolutionary war (1775) and the first was created a year before hand - which issued the statement of Declaration for Independence.

Confederation Congress formed after the war.

So the "You really don't much history, do you?" might as well be applied to you...

[edit on 4-1-2010 by infinite]

The tree of liberty is fed with THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS.

reply to post by spirit420


The "tree of liberty" has been chopped down and used for firewood. CuriousSkeptic was right on the money, and the people in this thread need to accept the fact that America is doomed and no armed revolution will occur.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by EMPIRE]

The infrastructure could be comprimised if a group of people activated thousands of EMP generators across the globe. The only method I can imagine that would work....Still, one can dream.

Or hey....What about a hundreds maybe thousands of "acid-bombs". The same concept as a dirty bomb, except you substitute the radioactive isotope for rock crystal '___'.

reply to post by EMPIRE


Empire, this guy has just joined today to post these two comments. Don't feed the troll.