What would it take?
 

What would it take for you to take part in an armed revolution against the current United States government?

I've thought about this a lot over the years. The founders went to war when the British made them pay something like 4% tax on tea. What would it take now for people to stand up and fight? People aren't up in arms when we have a rigged election. So what would it take for YOU to get so mad, you'd stand up and fight?

Personally speaking, if gun restrictions get any tighter, I'd be willing to do it. It might even take less than that for me.

So what line could the U.S. government cross, that would make you stand up and fight against them?

Ummm.. If I told you that, I'd wind up in Gitmo.
However, I have enjoyed this site:

Making private gun ownership illegal would do it for me.

our system of government? a revolution? armed? pah.

Our government has a revolution every 4 years, nay? The stupid people vote for the stupid candidates. There's your revolution. go get yourself elected. I'll vote for you.

Yet you still live in California.

I really don't think the sheeple are up for it. Bread and circuses are too plentiful.

All I can say is for the first time in my life I understand perfectly how a person or group could feel that political assasination is a valid solution to a country's problems. (I UNDERSTAND that feeling, not that I have any intentions or ability to act on it)

We might as well assume that Fatherland Security will be monitoring stuff like this post, but what the hell, they can put what I say in the file those idiots in the FBI started on me back in the 60's.

Problem with a revolt is logistics. Gov has the tech, spin control (media, etc), man power, and anything else need to quash an uprising fast. Given everything it's very possible the resistance would be in vain without proper planning.

I see alot of people dodging the question. He's not asking why it won't work, why people aren't anxious to revolt. He's asking what set of conditions would cause you to take up arms. This is actually a fascinating question, Radar. I need to mull it for a bit.

I would not. I would simply move. It's far easier and one-way air tickets are very cheap.

If I recall correctly, the Declaration of Independence actually lists the transgressions that must occur before an uprising is appropriate. It wasn't until all of the following happened that our Founding Fathers felt it was time to revolt. What the hell, I'll quote the whole thing. I'm sure Radar is very familiar with this document. It's worth a read if you haven't read it in a while:

As much as I hate Bush, I don't think we are there yet. It took more than taxes to do it, according to this document. I would say it should take more than banning guns. It should take a lot.

It seems to me the only qualification the founders made was that when government became destructive towards the ends of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, it's appropriate to take action against that government. They also warned that such a decision shouldn't be taken lightly and that it should be the result of a long chain of abuses and usurpations.

I doubt many would disagree that the U.S. government is guilty of a long chain of abuses, and usurpations of power or that it's currently working against the cause of liberty, and often the persuit of happiness.

smoothmoniker was correct in bringing up the fact that I'm not asking whether or not you think an armed uprising would be successful. I just want to know, what would push you beyond the breaking point. What would it take for you to stand up and fight the government with deadly force?

Would it take the murder of your family as they did with Randy Weaver or the people in Waco? Would it take the government stealing everything from you without charging you with a crime as they often do with anonymous tips they get about drug sales? Would it take the government claiming that your property was theirs to give away to any private person that wants it as they have recently in supreme court decisions?

There must be something that would make you stand up and say, "NO MORE!!!"

Undertoad has said there is nothing that would cause him to stand up and fight. He'd go elsewhere. This can only work for a short time though because America and the UN seek to control everything around the world. Eventually tyrrany will reach every corner of the world so at some point you have nowhere to run to.

What would it take for you to fight?

Here's a scenario...

Let's say someone makes the ultimate computer virus. It takes out every single bank, every single credit agency, the government, etc. and the economy of America collapses resulting in Marshall law. The government is doing door to door searches, and people are starving as they did during the great depression. The government won't allow anyone to leave the country, and most countries around the world don't want our people because of the burdon on them and because of our previous foreign policies causing wars which led to someone creating the virus in the first place. They don't want to suffer the same fate for helping us.

The government wants to take your guns so you can't defend yourself against looters and other criminals, or even the government itself.

Would you do it then?

I think most people are too comfortable to participate in something like a real revolt. Things would have to get very tough, indeed -- and they'd have to become simultaneously tough for the majority of the people.

No matter how angry we gets at the excesses and criminal behavior of our elected officials, we're a long way from living in the conditions that would justify an armed uprising. Our freedoms are largely intact -- the fact that we're able to have this very discussion without any real fear of reprisal is proof of that.

But yeah, from my cold, dead fingers.

It's all about the living conditions of the average person. People in Louisiana took up arms against people who were trying to help them, because mentally they were in a place that they didn't care anymore. Their houses were gone, there were dead bodies floating in the streets, and they wanted food.

It would take the murder of a lot of families, and I wouldn't count the ones who were stockpiling weapons and participating in a creepy pedophilic cult.

Me, and several people I know. If this is a problem, it's not widespread enough to affect average people.

Only if it were uncompensated, and widespread. I know the compensation they offer in these situations isn't necessarily a fair market price, but I expect to get majorly screwed by someone at least a couple of times in my life. It's just the way it is.

Ultimately, I would have to be in a place where I didn't care. And as long as I have food, and a reasonable place to live, and am not being surrounded by out-and-out destruction and murder of others, I'm still going to care.

"No guns here Mr. Tepper."

Ok, if my scenario wouldn't get you off your ass and into a mindset where you'd be willing to take up arms against the government, what exactly would it take? Everyone has something sacred and important. If the government made religion illegal would that do it? What would it take?

(Yes the gun thing would get me. My response was a quote.)

Religion being made illegal would get some of the Christians to rise up ... not the meek "love your neighbor" social relativist types, though ... the heartland, fundy types ... Good preacher could stir them up into action.

Which is at least in part what happened during the Revolution, wasn't it?

It would take a lot of Martyrs to really get the critical mass necessary for an actual revolution ... but it might never build. If the media paints every single one of these uprisings as the actions of David Koresh-like kooks, the whole movement fizzles and dies.

Once the 2nd amendment goes, so does this country
 

It stands to reason that the cost of living will be a major factor that no one has discussed yet. The way I see it once suburbanites get the shaft fully the preverbial you know what will hit the fan. With the precarious natrure of our infrastructure in this country, ie. almost complete dependence on oil for everything that needs to be transported, including food!, will be part of the beginning of the end. This is the factor to watch in a violent overthrow of this country. Accordingly, in reference to the post which quoted the DOI, the governemnt isn't making the proper legislation for the people right now. Congress just passed a pork filled energy bill recently, not which one part of it really dealt with the reality of the average citizen's situation and furthermore, was an obvious piece of pork filled legislation aimed at benefiting certain energy lobby interests in DC. There will be a major energy crisis and the supplies that aren't being hit with a 10% inflationary increase at that time, won't be able to shipped at all. A major hault to oil production would mean the end of Dick Cheney's America, as it has been told by many recent authors. This in conjuction with the thin social fabric in this country, one beset by over immigration and greed, regional conflicts will abound when people who have never done more than shelp their kids to soccer games and got groceries have to fend for themselves. The continuing oil crunch, environmental effects of pollution, and the threat of a potential attack make for a strong scenario of martial law being declared at some point in the not too distant future.

Bottom line is folks: Once you have everybody in power in the federal government calling for the seizing of arms you know this country is dead. I say stockpile as many weapons as you can without drawing attention to yourself . Start front PACs and organizations to minimize your exposure, that is until the whole entire fabric of our society unravels, which isn't far away by the way. Through these funnel funds and collect other indivduals willing to collect arms as indivduals, start a network, a silent network. Sub divide the front to keep things moving and under the radar, and wait for the proper moment to seize power, ie. after a major catastrophe. Hey just remember: "they got the guns be we got the numbers" With the mishandling of the Iraq war and the debacle that was Katrina, I question the moblization efforts against a domestic threat in the time of national direst.

What would it take for me? well I'm pretty much already there, I'm just waiting for the sweater to start to really unravel then mobilize.......

Let's say someone makes the ultimate computer virus. It takes out every single bank, every single credit agency, the government, etc. and the economy of America collapses resulting in Marshall law. The government is doing door to door searches,

If they want to search my house and we are in emergency situation, I would permit it. If we are dealing with a true economic collapse you HOPE they declare marshall law so that some level of order can be maintained while the collapse is dealt with, so it is as brief as possible.

If an agent of the government wants to search your house and doesn't have good intent under emergency circumstances, you are not taking up arms against the government, just one little tiny part of it. If you think you can protect your little island of order amongst a state of complete disorder, you are a moron. You only have so much ammo and so many hours of day in which you can stay awake.

I'd rather be....
 

I'd rather be a dead moron who died on my terms defending what I thought was right then in some relocation camp somewhere. Screw that!

It all depends on the threat. I have no faith that under complete direst this government would have any control. When something goes down on a large scale the government will be too busy saving it's own ass and it's true constituents the power elite to care about your safety, and anybody who doesn't believe that is truly a moron. If your smart you won't wait for their intstructions when the shit hits the fan. You'll be ready.... In many respects its not the government I worry about, it comes down to how you want to live or die once there is a complete breakdown. Individuals defending tiny bastions is not what I had in mind, more along regional cadres and federations to keep the local order. In essence that's what it would take any way.

Protection. That would do it for me.

The only time I would even consider taking up arms against something other than a nice Mallard in flight would be to protection against some invading hoard.

Scenario...

Much to our surprise, al qaeda has infultrated 10,000 operatives into this country over the past 5 or so years. They begin to systematically invade neigborhoods, towns, and utimately cities to try to "carve out" a muslim state here. One of these groups of fist pumping extremists try to invade my neighborhood and I had no way out, as a last resort, I would be inclinded to take up arms. The operative word here is extreme circumstances.

I'm sorry, but the potential loss of certain freedoms in this country, the government searching my home for firearms are not enough to deny my wife and kids my life in theirs because I was gunned down in some armed conflict. My first job is to protect my family and I can't do that if I am lying face down in the mud somewhere. But if someone was threating my family with bodily harm, you'd better believe I'd pick up a weapon and form an army.

Actually the question was..."What action could the government take.....what line could it cross...that would make you take up arms against the U.S. government in an armed revolution?" I wasn't asking what it would take for you to take up arms against hostile Muslims, or Extremist Christians. Just the U.S. Government....our servant.

One more unreported golf outing and Taft is sooooooo out of there! :mad:

(State gov't counts, right?)

As Wolf said, beer and ciruses are too plentiful, but if it *did* get a lot worse, I wonder if our military would enforce the will of the government at all...

Our soldiers, cops and FBI agents are Americans first and foremost, and therefore subject to the same desire for wealth and comfort as the rest of us. Take that away, and perhaps they'd desert in droves, leaving no one to force the rest of the peons to do anything but fend for themselves.

In the end, it is likely that whoever ended up with the most guns and guys would be the king/president/CEO/whatever.

I'm not sure about that. I think a lot of these folks crave order over any of the values you expressed or even those expressed in the Dec of Ind. Even back at the founding you had your centralizers who didn't have liberty at the top of their agenda. I'd say most Americans would choose order over comfort let alone revolution. My assumption was always that I'd just leave because our society doesn't want what I want. We really wouldn't be welcome elsewhere if we waited for the poop to hit the prop. I think the gradual elimination of property rights (my issue) would be such that I could see it happening before it became critical and get to someplace too remote for govthugs to worry about for a long time.

The overwhelming majority of American soldiers would refuse under any circumstances to fire on American civilians regardless of their orders. I have a feeling those in the FBI, CIA, BATF, NSA, and others under the "Homeland Security Department" would be more than willing to shoot Americans.

As long as the welfare checks cash, there won't be any uprising in this country.

When the welfare checks don't cash, it won't be a revolution in the sense that we're discussing here, it will be an outpouring of lawless rioting by an artificially created and maintained underclass.

Blackwater! Also the military continues to push for and deploy more robots, drones and autonomous killing machines that require just a couple sickos to operate an army. :mg:

Umm, Radar, where were you during the late '60s? I'm afraid you are unduly optimistic about their reluctance to shoot people. They had few problems shooting students before, maybe it's only armed middle-aged types they would think twice about.

So I take it from this group that with the exception of Wolf, walrus, and myself, not one of you would be willing to stand up and fight under any circumstances. The government could decide tomorrow to murder anyone over the age of 30, and those of you over 30 would get in line for the slaughter. You'd let them kill you, your wife, your children, and your parents. You'd let them take everything you work for, and everything you've ever owned. You'd let them do anything they wanted, and you'd never fight back.

That's pretty depressing.

sorry it took a while to respond. i had to stop laughing first. i don't know what military members you are familiar with, but... well hell, there are a lot of buts to put in there. in the end, if i tell one of my troops to put a bullet in someone because "they are the enemy" and my troop refuses? bullshit - my troop won't refuse for fear of the repurcussions.

i'm not saying that i would tell my people to fire on americans - i am saying that if i did they would either do it or risk being shot on the spot. end of story.

However serious the issue, the question starting this thread was a rhetorical one. It was not for the purpose of strategic planning. Just because few of the guys here are booting up and racking the rifles the minute somebody asks them a rhetorical question does not mean they are all a bunch of pussies. Few people know how hard they would have to be pushed or by whom until the countdown was actually begun, and we can't even agree that the clock is ticking.

Besides, with the response time this government has shown in Iraq and NO, I will be comfortably settled in Switzerland before the (still theoretical) march begins. With all the military bases being shut down and sold to developers, just how and where do you forsee troops being mobilized for a takeover anyway? You can't start the draft again just to have enough men handy to launch a crackdown on civil liberties, not even with a Republican administration.

But to come right out and answer your question about EXACTLY WHAT would it take to make me fight to get those people out of power, cancelling elections would do it for me. If Bush forced an ammendment through allowing himself unlimited terms in office, that would do it too.

By the time they got to the point where they were doing anything that radical, I would have put a lot of time and energy into stopping them. But when you look at lists of which governments have gone nuts and started killing people, it's really only a problem in tyrannical dictatorships.

Participating in the process of a democratic republic is part of what stops the government from going nuts and killing all the people. We are "fighting back" merely by talking about it.

.... and by voting

Oh yes, yes. I'd give my self up and rat out the ones in hiding. :lol2:

I can tell you for a fact that the majority of YOUR troops if told that American civilians were the "enemy" and you ordered those troops to fire, they would not only refuse the order, but take YOU into custody. In fact YOU might get shot by your own troops for giving such an unlawful order. How's that for reprecussions?


I served in the U.S. Navy myself and know many people from all branches.

The truth is, troops actually think. No matter how much the government tries to drum that out of them and turn them into automotons, they actually think. They are human. And they will not follow an order to fire on Americans under any circumstances.

Are there some? Sure. There are probably 10%-15% of psychos in the military who would follow an order to fire on Americans, but the other 85%-90% would stop them.

The GOP has removed all checks and balances in government. This IS a tyrannical regime. They control all branches of government and are wildly throwing away huge parts of the Constitution. They are trying to turn America into everything the founders created it to escape from...an empire that the sun never sets on that practices religious persecution, and has unlimited powers while not recognizing the rights of the individual.

That depends on how the troops perceive the civilians they're shooting up. What if the "patriots" have been labeled as "terrorists" by the government and media. Did the media give the Michigan Militia any kind of a fair hearing? Soldiers can only work with the information they have. You and I see the Bush Administration as operating outside the Constitution but remember the US officer corps is made up of card carrying GOP types and the many enlisted who are Dems will be of no help in identifying threats to Constitutional government.

You have blinders to many of the real checks and balances, but they are there.

The next really big one happens in November 2006. The right's golden boy, Mr. Santorum, is expected to lose by 8 points. Shall I put you in the Cellar calendar as predicting they'll cancel the election?

No. But you can put me in the calendar as saying the Supreme Court with Bush's nominees will overturn Roe v. Wade. And as far as the election goes, the re-districting done before the last election is still in place and so are the electronic voting machines without paper trails for verification built by Bush campaign contributers are still in place.

The last 2 elections were fixed, so I don't see why the next one won't be fixed too. The GOP likes to keep the illusion that people are still electing them. Also, my guess is the Republican candidate will be Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.

It doesn't matter because the GOP controls Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House. Any insane thing they think of is going to be passed. Every single unconstitutional social program, company welfare scheme, unprovoked wars, etc. will happen, and the Supreme Court won't rule against it.

Government is actively working against the people of America and has been for some time now. But at least until recently we had 2 factions of morons fighting each other. Under Republican control, government has grown at more than twice the rate it did at any other point in history.

They have total control! So the President could take something CATOesque, like Social Security reform, make it his major issue, and ramrod it right through the Republican congress.

What date would you like for the Roe overturn?

Some time after the next selection. Let's say 2010. And the odds of the GOP doing anything to actually reduce the size, scope, cost, or intrusiveness of government are as likely as me to be hit by lightning after winning the MegaMillions lottery twice in a row.

2010?? I thought they controlled everything, isn't five years a bit long?

It might take that long to confirm a second Supreme Court judge. You know, because confirmations are a piece of cake since the Reps control Congress.

if the troops just woke up under normal conditions one day and were told to go shoot some americans, yes - they would refuse. if the escalation to that order was gradual, they would follow orders.

A) civil unrest due to natural disaster, attack, etc.
B) group of outspoken geniuses who like to loudly proclaim that the gov't has no power but what they themselves choose to allow the gov't to have get louder and more belligerent.
C) group of geniuses are designated as a possible threat.
D) triggering event happens.
E) troops are ordered to squash an apparent rebellion.
F) *bang*

You've all seen the black and green videos of the people on the ground being taken out by helicopters. Could you make out the nationality, race or even the sex of the targets? No, they are just targets the guy on the other end of the radio says are to be eliminated. They could be waving an American flag.....no matter....targets. :(

Radar, according to a recent article in Vanity Fair, "To Love and Die in Iraq", that is precisely what is happening at the hands of our obedient soldiers every day. They shoot anybody or anything, having been ordered to take no chances. Even civilians under escort of other soldiers have been mowed down, further convincing the Iraqis that we are more deadly to their lives and happiness than Saddam ever was. Iraq is a perfect example of how little our troops are daring to think anymore. Even at the Abu Gharib trials they have all claimed they were "following orders", some of which were apparently from as high up as the Offal Office although there has been a concentrated effort to whitewash that.

Having been in the march on the Pentagon back in 1968, I know what it is like to have a guy no older than I aiming a combat rifle directly at my head. Being young and stupid, in pre-Kent State days, it never occured to me that he would actually shoot me. But that was because those troops were UNDER ORDERS not to shoot. Other venues made it plain that they WOULD shoot unarmed civilians with no compunctions, and I doubt they hesitated and philosophized about whether that girl watching from a distance was any physical threat. That was during Vietnam, and everything I have seen and read lately convinces me that the situation nowdays is 50 times more dangerous for anybody who is "confronting governmental authority".

you can get your view of the war from Vanity Fair... or you can get it from the people that are their. i'll put more stock in the version presented by people i have known and trusted for a number of years. are Iraqi's being shot every day? yep. are US soldiers sitting around getting off on popping unsuspecting innocents? if you think yes, then you are listening to too much Air America.

No, that's not what I think. I'm talking about the worst possible case scenario, which if it is found anywhere nowdays it will be in Iraq. As for knowing where to get the right story on war or fighting, been there, done that. I lived in Albuquerque during most of Vietnam, where they had 3 air bases and the AEC at that time. I got more than enough feedback from the guys coming and going, both officers and enlisted men, about what they really did and how they felt about it. Also, I was born at Ft. Bragg, NC, to an Army family and all my male relatives have served in some branch of the service during WWII or Korea. In those days, the people who REALLY did any fighting did not want to talk about it, the more they saw the less they said. A pilot who flew many Napalm runs told me, "As far as I am concerned, I never killed anybody. I never saw anything that happened on the ground, I just sometimes flew back through the cloud because that was fun." Another friend who fought in Korea said basically the same thing, "I shot my rifle a lot, but as far as I know I never hit anybody." Obviously these kids had developed their own ways of coping with the situation.

This leads me to wonder if it is only in the last 40 year that our generals have decided we need to be systematically, professionally indoctrinated to kill, without rationalizing or considering if it wasn't justified, instead of simply being trained in the technical means to do said killing? Do you think that today's generation of kids who have been forced into heavy combat when they thought they just signed up to get the college benefits are going to kill with MORE, or LESS thought outside of hearing the command to shoot? Will the military be MORE, or LESS successful in wiping out the individual's ability to understand his actions in a personal way? I am betting they will be LESS successful nowdays in getting kids to kill somebody who is NOT of a different color, religion, culture or size in a foreign country. I think that this generation is so egocentric, self absorbed, and materialistic, so unused to serious application of their attention to anything prior to enlisting, that they will not be so easily shaped. I also believe that the rate of mental breakdowns after this generation returns home will be unprecidented, even worse than Nam, because they will not be able to cope when it sinks in what they have seen and done after being so insulated all their lives before they went over there. So Radar could even be right, but for different reasons than because this crop of young warriors is more ethical. But after all, it only takes one person to shoot you dead, and you might just be facing the one in 10,000 who actually WILL do it without a second thought.

So, if an unarmed civilian is shot by a soldier, it's ok as long as the soldier doesn't enjoy it?

While the Vanity Fair view might be slanted, there is no doubt that the Fox News view is also slanted. Making tailgating and speeding capital crimes means that it is still a war zone. All of the happy stories in the world cannot change that one fundamental fact.

i seriously suggest you read Grossman's book. that is all i am going to say about it.

Rich - who said Fox WASN'T slanted? of course they are. my news from Iraq isn't coming from the tv. but from the real people there doing their real jobs - you know the real people that you seem to think are just over their popping iraqis who are innocently sipping tea. i haven't met any of them coming back excited about shooting people. i've had to deal with quite a few of them that are torn about it. not so much because they had to shoot someone, but because they ran into some asshole in the states that has the opinion that they are shooting innocents just for the hell of it.

ah, fuck it. if your mind is already made up that every soldier is only a mai lai wannabe then nothing i will ever say will matter to you.

I fully intend to read his book, now that I know it exists. And I suggest that YOU read "Blood Rites", which analyzes the human nature which makes it so frightfully easy to push us over the edge and willingly turn into killing machines.

I do not think you and I have opposite views. The difference is my nature leads me to think more about the person involved than the acts he performs. Probably because I am a woman, whatever. It matters to me who will be the last American to die for a mistaken idea and whether he enjoyed it, but it also matters just as much who was the FIRST one who got sent to die and all the unknown thousands of Iraqis we have "liberated" into the graveyards there. We are getting nowhere fast, and still following orders.

Fortunately, the expansion of gun rights has been on a quiet steady march for about the last ten years; liberalized, shall-issue concealed carry of weapons (more briefly known as CCW in knowledgeable discussion) is now the rule in 38 states, sometimes after years of struggle in the state legislatures. The more comprehensive the gun rights, the better the fundamental condition sustaining a Republic is: that the electorate be the sole source of political power. An electorate with the mass power of life and death over its government staffers (and never forget that these too are of the electorate) is about as powerful as an electorate is likely to get.

For Paul and me, the gun-rights end of the matter is somewhat clouded by the fact that we live in the gun-iffy state of California. CA hasn't yet twigged, statewide, to the social advantages of liberalized good-guys CCW. The procrime/progenocide people -- the antigun ones, that is -- are and remain uninformed about the extremely, well-nigh universally, good results of liberalized, shall-issue CCW permit policies in 38 states, not one of whom has experienced the least problem from this population.