[Jables]

As we all know this country was founded by some men who committed high treason against England. 55 men stepped up and actually signed the document that committed that treason. My question is this:

When and/or if is it time for us as Americans to stand up for the principles that those 55 stood up for 222 years ago? Are we there yet? Would it do any good? Basically I'm just wanting to see if I'm not the only who thinks our Founding Fathers would have already overthrown this country as we know it now.

 

[RL357Mag]

Fortunately at the time of this nations' founding, there were no gun laws prohibiting the citizenry from owning the same "technology" the "government" had at it's disposal. The playfield is no longer even! I think we are well past the time that citizens could launch a successful uprising, for the simple fact that the technology used by and available to the military and law enforcement community would quickly quell any disturbance before it even got off the ground. Also the prevailing anti-gun, non-confrontational mentality in this country does not lend itself to a unified, organised revolt, which would be absolutely necessary to be effective, given the other impediments listed above. To be sure, many people on both sides would die, but victory would not go to the underdog in this case. I once saw the results of a poll in which the respondants were the law enforcement community. The question was whose side they would be on if the SHTF. About 50% said they would side with the citizenry - they were all regular "beat" cops. The upper echelon would remain steadfastly dedicated to their governmental agencies. The military would probably exhibit much less dissent, and therein lies the improbability of a revolution being successful. Law enforcement could be overpowered by the citizenry - the military with all it's air and land support technology can not. Just my opinion, and I hope I'm wrong...

 

[Jables]

Fortunately at the time of this nations' founding, there were no gun laws prohibiting the citizenry from owning the same "technology" the "government" had at it's disposal. The playfield is no longer even! I think we are well past the time that citizens could launch a successful uprising, for the simple fact that the technology used by and available to the military and law enforcement community would quickly quell any disturbance before it even got off the ground. Also the prevailing anti-gun, non-confrontational mentality in this country does not lend itself to a unified, organised revolt, which would be absolutely necessary to be effective, given the other impediments listed above. To be sure, many people on both sides would die, but victory would not go to the underdog in this case. I once saw the results of a poll in which the respondants were the law enforcement community. The question was whose side they would be on if the SHTF. About 50% said they would side with the citizenry - they were all regular "beat" cops. The upper echelon would remain steadfastly dedicated to their governmental agencies. The military would probably exhibit much less dissent, and therein lies the problem of a revolution being successful. Law enforcement could be overpowered by the citizenry - the military can not. Just my opinion, and I hope I'm wrong...

What about the fact the military is over extended?

 

[fapprez]

I don't think they are THAT over extended. Trust me, if there were a revolt, we would see just how much military is still on our soil.

On a different note, with all the tension between Lady Liberty and the terrorist communities, would not a revolt give them a perfect chance to strike? I mean if the people are fighting the governmet, and the government fighting back it's people, who would fight the terrorists and could we bind back together to fight as one?

 

[RL357Mag]

I don't think they are THAT over extended. Trust me, if there were a revolt, we would see just how much military is still on our soil.

On a different note, with all the tension between Lady Liberty and the terrorist communities, would not a revolt give them a perfect chance to strike? I mean if the people are fighting the governmet, and the government fighting back it's people, who would fight the terrorists and could we bind back together to fight as one?

Good point. What an opportunity this would present to those desiring to attack us. An interesting hypothetical dilema. Would the citizenry and government unite to fight an outside threat, would the citizenry and outside threat unite to form a "new" government, or would there be three separate factions all fighting eachother???

 

[RL357Mag]

What about the fact the military is over extended?

The first duty of the military is to protect the United States government from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC...The conflicts our military have been called to participate in in such places as Somalia and Iraq posed more of a threat to the US miltary than any internal insurrection would because of the proliferation of military weapons available to the citizens of those third world countries. Very few citizens in this country have access to machine guns, rocket launchers, mortars, RPG's, etc. Don't forget the availability of combat aircraft and high-tech gadgets like thermal imaging and Gen IV NVG's. Hell, the National Guard would probably be able to defeat the citizens of this country!

 

[Jables]

So what do you think true patriots need to do? The political process is getting so corrupt.

 

[bkt]

Hell, the National Guard would probably be able to defeat the citizens of this country!

I'm not sure I agree with that. Certainly, no one would want to go up against our own military, but it is probably very true that our military wouldn't want to go up against U.S. citizens, either. How many officers are going to order Americans to fire on citizens? How many will be around to give that order a second time?

So what do you think true patriots need to do?

Get the majority of the people on the same page with regard to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the myriad abuses our government -- at all levels -- have been engaging in. Once the will of the people demand a change in government, the change can be brought about, peacefully or not.

It's an uphill battle: our schools don't teach civics, the evils of socia1ism and communism, and paint the U.S. as an evil entity. News media and entertainment is all about misinformation and fluff. It doesn't help that so many people are more concerned about American Idol than losing their rights; people are way too comfortable, and they won't give up their wealth, convenience and comfort easily.

The Founding Fathers recognized abuse of power from King George when he started breaking the laws of his own country. Using their wealth, they exploited the primary form of communication -- printing presses -- to spread their views to the people to try to get them fired up. Would they want to reverse the course of abuse and corruption? Certainly. Would they be able to easily? Probably not. Would they take up arms at this time? Certainly not. But they would be stockpiling ammunition and supplies.

On a different note, with all the tension between Lady Liberty and the terrorist communities, would not a revolt give them a perfect chance to strike? I mean if the people are fighting the governmet, and the government fighting back it's people, who would fight the terrorists and could we bind back together to fight as one?

The terrorists are already here, in this country, planning and training. They are looking for an opportunity to strike, and that time will eventually come. If our government were truly interested in doing its job, there wouldn't be training camps like those in Hancock, NY or Red House, VA.

You ask a good question, though: would we be able to bind back together? I don't know. There would definitely be a large group saying the Constitution had failed us and we need a new form of government that would embrace socia1ism. Others would want a direct return to the Constitution and the autonomy of states. The potential for balkanization or outright civil war would exist.

 

[Jables]

The Founding Fathers recognized abuse of power from King George when he started breaking the laws of his own country. Using their wealth, they exploited the primary form of communication -- printing presses -- to spread their views to the people to try to get them fired up. Would they want to reverse the course of abuse and corruption? Certainly. Would they be able to easily? Probably not. Would they take up arms at this time? Certainly not. But they would be stockpiling ammunition and supplies.

I would say they would be starting the process of revolt, they revolted long before the first shot was ever fired. They started with words and trying to bring about change peacefully. If every Constitution loving American isn't active this political cycle (I don't just mean with the Presidential politics either, they are the least powerful branch of government at this point, but from the School House to the White House) then we have no right to even consider revolting. Our government is only as good as we allow it to be. However, if we do our best and we put people in who promise change and say they are going back to the Constitution, and then screw us over and give us more of the same, then it's time to start a revolt, but remember that revolt has to start with words, not with shots.

Remember this is battle of ideas, always has been, always will be.

Our biggest problem is that we have allowed them to take our rights away to the point that they have an inventory of your defense system and will take it if you become a threat, the bold defiance we seen with the Founding Fathers could not be pulled of in this day and age. I say we've allowed it because we didn't get all of our hunting buddies together and our co-workers and our police officers and our National Guard mens together to protest the Brandy Bill and other legislation in the past 25 yrs. We also didn't hold every last one of the Senators and Representatives accountable who voted for it. To them they believe we want more of the same.

I do think it's time to revolt and bring as many people with us as possible. The first step is in the voting booth in November. If people aren't willing to stand up for change in November is a private voting booth, they aren't going to do it openly on the battle field (whether verbally or physically).

Obama said when we get bitter we cling to our Bibles and our Guns. I think he's right except he forgot to mention, we only cling until the next episode of American Idol comes on, then we just forget about the sins of yesterday committed against us.

Although the great state of Iowa is not yet the Peoples Republic of Iowa (yet), we have our first big test of the system this year and will set the stage for just how many rights we allow them to take away in the future. We have a State Senate and State House that won't let us vote on a Constitutional Marriage Amendment to the State Constitution. If we don't win this election cycle, if will be the same as dropping our draws, bending over and saying, "thank you sir, may I have another?" I promise you gun rights are on next years agenda.

 

[Boris]

I just know I will get it in the neck...................I have never heard of such a load of clap trap in a while, well not since Prime Minister's Question Time actually......You all rattle on about the presevation of the Constitution, civil rights and the fight for democracy, and in the next breath if the democratic system passes laws that don't suit you, or you do not personally agree with the concensus of the American people, you advocate an armed uprising to overthrow the democratic elected goverment. What then? impose your values on the majority of your countrymen through the barrel of a gun.....mmmmm, and you are suprised when the majority of your countrymen raise concerns on unregulated firearms ownership?

Gentlemen your firearm rights under the Constitution can only be defended through reasoned arguement not through threads threatening armed insurrection against your own democatic elected goverment, it's childish, will not happen and utterly counter productive....................

 

[RL357Mag]

I'm not sure I agree with that. Certainly, no one would want to go up against our own military, but it is probably very true that our military wouldn't want to go up against U.S. citizens, either. How many officers are going to order Americans to fire on citizens? How many will be around to give that order a second time?


Get the majority of the people on the same page with regard to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the myriad abuses our government -- at all levels -- have been engaging in. Once the will of the people demand a change in government, the change can be brought about, peacefully or not.

.

Our government , local and federal, HAVE gone up against the citizenry several times in recent history. Look back to the 60's and you will find Penn State and all the racial riots across the country. Look at WACO and Ruby Ridge. These days I believe it is MUCH easier for the government to do so, and they would do it with much less concern for life. The Police in many situations take the law into their own hands. The two most recent instances of 30-50 shots fired prove that. The pendulum has moved the other way, and maybe they feel it's payback for all the times in past years when they were reprimanded for doing their job because of "activist" racists like Sharpton and Jackson. But I certainly don't think that the government or law enforcement has any moral compass these days. Look at that scumbag Drew Peterson - he may deserve what he is getting, but isn't it amazing how quickly his brother's in arms are throwing him to the wolves using trumped-up weapons violations to effect an arrest that they are incapable of implementing by producing evidence of a murder? Out of frustration they are using firearms viloations for lack of anything else. The government used entrapment to secure an arrest against Randy Weaver, and then they used firearms violations charges to wipe out the Branch Davidians. And you think the government will allow an armed citizenry to voice it's disapproval and not take action?

It's impossible to get people on the same page in this country - that's why we have organisations like the NRA, CCRKBA, SAF, and others to project our voices and fight our battles. Half the people in this country won't even get their fat asses off the sofa to go vote. Look at all the vitriole even on these forums from people that are so fixated on a Ron Paul victory, that out of spite, they will not vote for the Republican Party nominee. They want to voice their opiniion or teach a lesson at the risk of electing an anti-gun Liberal! And you think it's possible to "unite" people? In my business I am in contact with the public on a daily basis. Conversations always turn to politics, and I can tell you that the Liberals among us are just as determined, if not more so, than we are. You will not turn a so******t-leaning Liberal Democrat into anything else no matter how good your oratory or facts are. This is a battle, not a debate. And every time "compromise" is used to reach an agreement between anti-gunners and pro-gunners, we lose! The NRA knew this years ago, but seems to be forgetting that lesson. This is the tact the other side has taken to gradually chip away - this is what Obama and Clinton are all about. When it comes to rights - compromise is NOT in my vocabulary!

PS - Why does the word so-ci-alist get asterisked-out as if it's a profanity?

 

[bkt]

I just know I will get it in the neck...................I have never heard of such a load of clap trap in a while, well not since Prime Minister's Question Time actually......You all rattle on about the presevation of the Constitution, civil rights and the fight for democracy, and in the next breath if the democratic system passes laws that don't suit you, or you do not personally agree with the concensus of the American people, you advocate an armed uprising to overthrow the democratic elected goverment.

For my part, I advocate helping people learn about the Constitution and BoR so they can recognize a problem when they see it. Nowhere in the Constitution, for example, is the way opened for the Federal government to collect taxes to redistribute to poor people, yet it collects billions every year for that purpose. Article IV Section 4 guarantees the Feds will step in and protect the states in the event foreign nationals come here in droves uninvited, yet the Feds outright encourage foreigners to hop across our southern border. The people recently did speak as a single voice not long ago and caused Federal legislators to back down on a sweeping amnesty bill that would have given legal status to the 20+ million foreign nationals in the country illegally.

When people are ignorant of the country's laws, its history, and current events, it is not wrong to try to correct the problem. I do not advocate violence to do it.

What then? impose your values on the majority of your countrymen through the barrel of a gun.....mmmmm, and you are suprised when the majority of your countrymen raise concerns on unregulated firearms ownership?

Odd, the government (again, at all levels) has no compunctions to enforce its will through the barrel of a gun.

Gentlemen your firearm rights under the Constitution can only be defended through reasoned arguement not through threads threatening armed insurrection against your own democatic elected goverment, it's childish, will not happen and utterly counter productive....................

We need to make every peaceful Herculean effort to retain our rights and support the Constitution. If those efforts fail, there might well be a choice that has to be made.

The ideas in this thread are not unique to this forum, but have been discussed on dozens of forums, and those are only the ones I happen to know about; I'm sure there are plenty more.

 

[bkt]

Our government , local and federal, HAVE gone up against the citizenry several times in recent history.

Yes, you're absolutely right. And for similar pseudo-isolated incidents, the same could happen again. But a widespread aggression by the government against the people would probably fail; too many people would stand up in opposition and too few in the military would go along with it for long.

And you think it's possible to "unite" people?

One way to do it is to make sure people have all the information and let them decide for themselves. Remind people of American history and why we flourished. Remind them of the liberty the Constitution guarantees, and let them think it out for themselves how the government has stepped on that liberty.

Certainly, it is possible to unite people. You'll never get everyone on the same page, but we can do a lot better than what we have today.

In my business I am in contact with the public on a daily basis. Conversations always turn to politics, and I can tell you that the Liberals among us are just as determined, if not more so, than we are. You will not turn a so******t-leaning Liberal Democrat into anything else no matter how good your oratory or facts are.

That has been my experience as well. In fact, just yesterday I was walking with a co-worker and he started blasting Bush for being a globalist in bed with corporations. I told him I agreed, but turning to government to remedy the problem only changes the name of your master; it doesn't fix the problem. Whether it's a global corporate cartel, a military, a church or a government controlling your lives, your lives are not yours to control. Look to the individual and ensure whatever power is in place is absolutely as small as possible to get its very limited jobs done. He wouldn't buy it; he said it could never happen. I suggested he read up on post Revolutionary War history....

PS - Why does the word so-ci-alist get asterisked-out as if it's a profanity?

Snip off the "so" at the beginning and the "t" at the end and you're left with a word that is used in spam very frequently. The forum automatically censors it.

 

[robocop10mm]

The majority rules. That is the basis of our Republic. Unfortunately, The majority do not vote so we are ruled by the majority of the voters. Perhaps voting should be mandatory? Too many people sitting back on their thumbs waiting for someone to "do" it for them. What you get is someone doing it "to" you.
It is and always has been a war of ideas. They are winning. They start at the elementary schools. Indoctrinating the future sheeple. Our public schrewel system has created generations of mindless dolts that do what they are told.
That is not to mention the parasites that vote for the person who brings the pork back home. Why is it that Ted Kennedy has been re-elected God knows how many times? He gets "stuff' for the people of Massatwosheits. Term limits will correct much of the problem, but the Congressmen will never vote for that and the constituants want term limits for everyone else's elected official, not thier own.
So what is the answer? I do not believe this Country can survive another 100 years. There will be some different form of Government (so-cial-ist) or several Countries where there is now one.
That may be the best option. The Southern states and states like Montana and Idaho forming a conservative Constitutional Republic. The northeastern states forming a so-cial-ist confederation and Kalifornia and Oregon (perhaps Washington) forming a Communist workers union.
Maybe we will get lucky and Kali will slip off and become an isolated island. They will not have any cars because they don't have any refineries to make their own gas. Arnold will have to give up his Hummer but that is what they deserve.

 

[Jables]

I just know I will get it in the neck...................I have never heard of such a load of clap trap in a while, well not since Prime Minister's Question Time actually......You all rattle on about the presevation of the Constitution, civil rights and the fight for democracy, and in the next breath if the democratic system passes laws that don't suit you, or you do not personally agree with the concensus of the American people, you advocate an armed uprising to overthrow the democratic elected goverment. What then? impose your values on the majority of your countrymen through the barrel of a gun.....mmmmm, and you are suprised when the majority of your countrymen raise concerns on unregulated firearms ownership?

Gentlemen your firearm rights under the Constitution can only be defended through reasoned arguement not through threads threatening armed insurrection against your own democatic elected goverment, it's childish, will not happen and utterly counter productive....................

Boris, you missed it, that's the last thing I'm advocating. If they pass laws we don't like, we have an obligation to vote them out of office. I don't know where you live Boris but I will tell you this. For the last 6 election cycles (that every 2 yrs not 4) we have voted in some sort of change from the status quo and it has been in the word of the great profits The Who, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Re-read my post, I advocated no-violent resolution, please read my signature, it's the truth whether you want to believe it or not. And revolution came from a disagreement in policy or morals if that's what you want to call it.

I don't know if you have read American history but the Founding Fathers did try to use reasoned argument. The thread was started to spark a conversation basically speaking of the corruption in our government. I'm not advocation an armed coup on the USA, I'm merely asking if people believe our Founding Father would have put up with this. I believe they wouldn't have. We need to send a message of change November 4, 2008.

BTW, Boris, study world history, countries like Rome, Greece, etc... You will find as goes the morals, so goes the country. Morals are more than just opinions. They are the basics for most if not all law.

 

[moviezombie]

i am following this thread with great interest. i'm impressed at the tone and quality of thought and expression of those thoughts......

movie zombie

 

[painted_klown]

Great topic and great points made by all.

I am in the "Government is too big" camp. I feel "big brother" has too much control over our lives.

They try to take away our guns for "safety" reasons. Safety? If only the criminals have guns then I am left defenseless and only have the good men and women of the police force to protect me. Sadly we can't all be neighbors with an officer and the departments don't have enough funding due to unfunded mandates, being in a poor town/county to begin with, very small community that continues to shrink as we lose more and more jobs here (less tax payers = less money to run things) and what money the city does have gets spent on laying bricks on our town square, trying to make it look pretty!!!

Luckily in a small community the crime rate is lower and my chances of being a victim of violent crime is reduced because of that. Unfortunately though crime still exists here. There is an unsolved murder in town as I write this. NO suspects as of yet!!! That is scary to know and this happened roughly a month ago. Also last week there was a mugging. Apparently some lady was hit in the back of the head and had her purse stolen!!! You must understand that I live in a "one horse town" and these horrible atrocities are going on and seem to be happening more frequently as of late.

SO, that is why I am concerned about the government getting too much control, taking our rights, and protection away from us. We need our guns as local law enforcement officers do not have the funds to be "where the crime is happening"

Thanks for reading.

 

[Boris]

BTW, Boris, study world history, countries like Rome, Greece, etc... You will find as goes the morals, so goes the country. Morals are more than just opinions. They are the basics for most if not all law.

Believe you me I haven't missed the point and I am more than a little familiar with world history, and current events.....I have a great deal of sympathy as I don't think you have a credible candidate in any party for the up coming, given the public speeches and debates I have caught on TV (I monitor the polical situation because I have American clients).

People are no more immoral than they where in the 16th. century, it's just that we have TV and the Internet, and to blame it on declining moral values is cobbers! The US is a fine country, and there is nothing wrong with the people, but it is my opinion, and only my opinion (because I know it's not shared by most of you), the social care, which one would expect from a modern Western civilized nation seem to be wanting.......(bkt and I have had this out before, and we agree to disagree), I think there is great social injustice at all levels, some have been spoken about on this forum, unfortunately anyone seemingly who raises the subject is labled a commie, or so******t and real issues within this fine country of yours will never be addressed.

Once the revered Constitution as been suspended, as with the detainees in Quantanmo Bay then it's fair game and your on the sippery slope. Now, before anyone starts shouting and bawling about the terrorist scumbags, or whatever other colourful names you want to call them, they have never been charged with any offence, tried or convicted. Some are totally innocent and still remain in custody. The current administration for their own ends have manipulated the Constitution and lied to the people over the invasion of Iraq (thanks to Tony Blair the British public where similarly decieved), their manipulation of the press is such that there are still people that believe that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, although a despot, he was their despot and Osama and his crew hated him. They had no presence in Iraq at the time of the invasion, he was considered (rightly you might say) a bad Muslim by the funamentalists.

When you see a bunch of people who have been kidnapped and placed into a no man's land, with bags over their heads, tortured and had all civil rights removed, some have been there for over 5 years, think long and hard, if they can do it to them why not you.

Remember also some of those people are there because the Pakistani Secret Police sold them for about $3000 as 'probable' combatants. No evidence, no trial, no Constitution........

Well that's my 2 cents, it's the way of things and the way things are going either you or I are likely to change things, merely live with the consequences...........

 

[Jables]

Believe you me I haven't missed the point and I am more than a little familiar with world history, and current events.....I have a great deal of sympathy as I don't think you have a credible candidate in any party for the up coming, given the public speeches and debates I have caught on TV (I monitor the polical situation because I have American clients).

We do not have a credible candidate for President. The President doesn't have as much power as most Americans and for that matter the world seems to think they have. The local governments, city, county, state, and even our U.S. Senators and Representatives have the power. I don't give two rips who wins the White House, I do care who wins the State House.

I am in the "Government is too big" camp. I feel "big brother" has too much control over our lives.

We have allowed that to happen by only paying attention to the Presidency. I love to here people talk about the lack of good candidates, but honestly Americans don't get involved in the recruiting process or the primary process unless it's for President. That's very sad. Originally voters did not vote for a President, our State Senators and State Representatives did because the Founding Fathers thought commoners where not smart enough to elect a President. After watching this mockery this election cycle, I tend to agree with our Founding Fathers.

 

[h&k bigdaddydieseldan]

Absolutely positively 100% our forefathers are rolling over in their graves and they would revolt without a doubt