So, you say we need a revolution?
- Thread starter Cannonball888
- Start date
- Status
The BATFE aren't as High Class or even handed as the Nazis.
That aside.
A wise man once said that power flows from the barrel of a gun. When the government has all of the guns, they have all of the power. The founders implicitly understood this and provided relief in the form of the second amendment.
I do think that we are closer to a civil war than we really think. To successfully start a revolution or civil war the requirement is only 6% of the population in active participation. The combination of homegrown disaffectation and the incoming Atzlan are driving that number closer. Notice I didn't say 6% of citizens, but of the total population. This is without the intervention of any outside force.
The conflicts that I have analyzed to make this deternination:
American Revolution
US Civil War
English Civil War
Russian Revolution 1918
Russian Revolution c.1990
French Revolution
Jefferson
That aside.
A wise man once said that power flows from the barrel of a gun. When the government has all of the guns, they have all of the power. The founders implicitly understood this and provided relief in the form of the second amendment.
I do think that we are closer to a civil war than we really think. To successfully start a revolution or civil war the requirement is only 6% of the population in active participation. The combination of homegrown disaffectation and the incoming Atzlan are driving that number closer. Notice I didn't say 6% of citizens, but of the total population. This is without the intervention of any outside force.
The conflicts that I have analyzed to make this deternination:
American Revolution
US Civil War
English Civil War
Russian Revolution 1918
Russian Revolution c.1990
French Revolution
Jefferson
Titan6
member
6% is more than 18,000,000 people. You might get that many people to vote on American Idol but you will never get that many people to back a cause enough to go to war with the fed.
elrod
Member
DigitalWarror
tmajors
I also join the others in thinking the battle of the not-to-distant future will be in repulsion of the Mexican invasion combined with the Muslum terrorists who have gained entry.
To me the glaring refusal to enforce the Constitutional Law (borders, for example), is as bad as the statement quoted.
tmajors
Waco, for example.
I also join the others in thinking the battle of the not-to-distant future will be in repulsion of the Mexican invasion combined with the Muslum terrorists who have gained entry.
fletcher
Member
Good read - I never even knew that happened.
BobCav
Member
The American Revolution began long before the War for American Independence. It was a period of extreme displeasure against the tyrannical government that spawned a rebellion of words, thoughts and ideas that evenually became an open rebellion against England and finally war. The taking up of arms against England was only the final stage that began with the Declaration of Independence.
I feel we are in the beginning stages of the Second American Revolution. With the proper application of words and votes, God willing it won't come to arms but one never knows. That's why our founding fathers framed the Bill of Rights as they did. They hoped to guarantee that words, logic and reason through effective use of the First Amendment would be able to bring forth any change necessary, but failing that the full force and might of the armed citizenry would use the Second Amendment as a last resort.
I feel we are in the beginning stages of the Second American Revolution. With the proper application of words and votes, God willing it won't come to arms but one never knows. That's why our founding fathers framed the Bill of Rights as they did. They hoped to guarantee that words, logic and reason through effective use of the First Amendment would be able to bring forth any change necessary, but failing that the full force and might of the armed citizenry would use the Second Amendment as a last resort.
I didn't mean to imply that a single cause was required. You only need 6% willing to go to war, for any and every reason. Single cause conflicts sort themselves out faster but the most long lasting conflicts (like the current African situation) often have multiple causes and fronts.
Jefferson
leadcounsel
member
A #1 reason for the state and Fed governments to create databases of registration of firearms is so that they can have total power to identify owners and collect their guns in a state of national emergency.
Governments have the power to do this and also have the lists, or at least partial lists of guns and owners.
One such national emergency would be the hint of a civil war in the US.
Governments have the power to do this and also have the lists, or at least partial lists of guns and owners.
One such national emergency would be the hint of a civil war in the US.
M2 Carbine
member
If we got into a full blown revolution our "foreign friends" would not come as conquerers but as "friends", to help us straighten out the problem.
It's not in anyone's interest that the US fail economically but it is in the foreign governments interest that they be able to eventually exert a lot of control over the US.
I would suspect our "friends" would play both sides against the middle and try to position themselves with and help who they wanted to win. No doubt in the end having the winner greatly in debt to our foreign benefactors.
Even the people that hate us don't want to see the world's care package go out of business and they aren't going to stand by and let that happen.
The right/left bickering has stopped?
DigitalWarrior
Member
Sure they would come as friends. We went into Iraq as friends too. Hows that workin for us? I am sure the hippie telling bikers that they should wear helmets has nothing but good intentions. It wouldn't go well for him.
If we ever went to the point were people went to arms in the street, it would have been a long time since we had the ability to send care packages.
The left/right bickering did stop and it didn't resume until we destroyed a country then invaded another for the funny.
If we ever went to the point were people went to arms in the street, it would have been a long time since we had the ability to send care packages.
The left/right bickering did stop and it didn't resume until we destroyed a country then invaded another for the funny.
Not sure who said it, but it's a good summing up of the situation. At least it was a while ago. I personally believe that we're past that awkward stage, but in yet another one. This one, we don't have enough people that have realized that we're past the awkward stage.
of course, once that's established, we're still not ready to start shooting. We need to put all the nails in the coffin and bury it, and then after the night watch, we can go get the guns. This is a last ditch, no holds barred attempt to reform--throwing things up to the supreme court, attempting sweeping change in Congress, etc. And when the elitists and powermongers and such reject it, then we can shoot them. And these efforts will give us organization to use after the shooting starts as well.
Look, a revolution is a LONG way off. 4 boxes protect our freedoms, soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box, and that is the correct order of usage. (I am quoting someone else) so armed revolution is a LONG way down the list.
But lets say we get to that point, we don't really need to overthrow the entire government, just oust the bits that are causing a problem. Take the Athens case, they didn't have to kill the president, VP, all the supreme court justices, etc etc, just had to take care of some locals. In the same way, if the sherrif has his deputies abscond with the ballot boxes you get your guns and go after them. However, for the most part, getting a bunch of people to wave signs around is going to bring enough attention and enough heat.
Sometimes the right to bear arms just makes the government think twice, and invest more resources in a strong arm tactic. Think how many federal resources went into securing Elian Gonzalez...now run that same situation where guns in the hands of citizens are taken out of the equation, now 4 uniformed police can handle what would before take a swat team.
And no, I don't see the next armed revolution as gun owners throwing on camo and taking on the appearance of an army....I see it more of people hiding their guns, then as opportunities present themselves, take out political leaders, parts of the supply chain, etc etc.
As far as the police and military being friends and neighbors, yes, that would make it very tough on both sides. Still, there is a definite right and wrong, and a friend or neighbor who is telling black people they are not allowed to vote this election is going to stop being a friend that instant.
Remember, it was the local police as much as the military who were kicking down doors and dragging the jews off to camps during WWII, if I was hiding a jewish family and some people kicked down my door to take them by force, the fact that the policeman happened to be the son of my barber, or bartender, or neighbor 4 doors down....irrelevant
But lets say we get to that point, we don't really need to overthrow the entire government, just oust the bits that are causing a problem. Take the Athens case, they didn't have to kill the president, VP, all the supreme court justices, etc etc, just had to take care of some locals. In the same way, if the sherrif has his deputies abscond with the ballot boxes you get your guns and go after them. However, for the most part, getting a bunch of people to wave signs around is going to bring enough attention and enough heat.
Sometimes the right to bear arms just makes the government think twice, and invest more resources in a strong arm tactic. Think how many federal resources went into securing Elian Gonzalez...now run that same situation where guns in the hands of citizens are taken out of the equation, now 4 uniformed police can handle what would before take a swat team.
And no, I don't see the next armed revolution as gun owners throwing on camo and taking on the appearance of an army....I see it more of people hiding their guns, then as opportunities present themselves, take out political leaders, parts of the supply chain, etc etc.
As far as the police and military being friends and neighbors, yes, that would make it very tough on both sides. Still, there is a definite right and wrong, and a friend or neighbor who is telling black people they are not allowed to vote this election is going to stop being a friend that instant.
Remember, it was the local police as much as the military who were kicking down doors and dragging the jews off to camps during WWII, if I was hiding a jewish family and some people kicked down my door to take them by force, the fact that the policeman happened to be the son of my barber, or bartender, or neighbor 4 doors down....irrelevant
pharmer
Member
I think it prudent to refrain from public comment of the timeliness of a revolution. "They" monitor these sites and if you have an ISP you pay for, it isn't hard to find out where you are. As for America, it'll be at least another 50 years before folks realize that the two parties take turns about every dozen years or so, sodomizing us and proclaiming it is a "new direction for America". Then another 50 years to put down the remote long enough to think about doing something about it. Joe
Koblenz
Member
Yes, you would think they would not want any further connection with Mexico, but that is not what opinion polls have shown. I read about one recently in which 60 % of Mexicans said they believed the southwestern US rightfully belonged to Mexico. Remember the first illegal immigrant demonstrations last year, when the Mexicans were waving Mexican flags and carrying signs saying the southwest belonged to them, and signs that said Gringos should go back to Europe?
A lot of Third World immigrants don't understand that it is Western Civilization that has made the US a prosperous and powerful country. When I was in college I knew a Muslim student from a Middle Eastern country. He kept telling me how "lucky" Americans were. He thought our wealth and power was just a matter of luck. He could not understand that our success was the direct result of being a Western Civilization.
Titan6
member
Yep, really liked how the same Western civilization improved Mexico.
Soap Box: The media doesn't spew anything but the party line-------------------------------------Check
Ballot Box: Can you really tell the difference between the available choices (Ron Paul Excepted)-----Check
Jury Box: Attorneys charged with contempt for even mentioning "Jury Nullification"------------------Check
Cartridge box: Not Yet
Jefferson
ConfuseUs
Member
Attack of the Keyboard Commandos.
That's contingent on the conditions prior to the conflict.
The government's weapons are its biggest disadvantage. Dropping a 2,000 lb cluster bomb in a neighborhood in an attempt to bag 6 insurgents will generate minimum 6 replacement insurgents and popular support. Bottom line: the gov't spent a small fortune on a cluster bomb, reduced the insurgent population by 0, and made a lot of new enemies. Also, if a civil war began, the government would lose a lot of its manpower. Widespread paranoia about moles and secret sympathizers among the remainder would infect the gov't as well. In short, the government does NOT hold all the cards.
Damn right it sounds heroic, that's why Red Dawn was such a popular movie. Anyone who thinks about it realizes that a civil war means years of being cold, wet, hungry, scared, sick, and poorly clothed. By the end of it, nobody will care who "won", as long as it ends.
Of course, that's if our political disagreements degenerate into armed conflict. The U.S. is designed to experience revolutions on a regular basis:
Revolutionary War
Articles of Confederation
Replacement of AC by Constitution and federal gov't system
Civil War and emancipation of slaves
Women's suffrage and women's rights movements
Prohibition (AKA a step in the wrong direction)
Repeal of Prohibition (Nation came to its senses)
Civil rights movements
Any time Congress or the presidency changes hands
So I am all for revolution changing American government. I do not want to pick up arms to do it. And most revolutions in this country do not require it, so that's good.
Different western civilization. Someone may need to clarify this, but they pretty much got thier corruption and such from the Spaniards. The society that evolved from the European imperialism in Mexico(and most of Latin America, as I understand it) is very different than the society that evolved from the liberty minded ones that settled further north.
jselvy said;
When you can get 18 million Americans to decide they are willing to give up their lifestyle, risk, death, imprisonment, and put their immediate families through the sames risks, give me a call. Until then your numbers make the case for the fact that you aren't going to see a revolution here as much as you might like to. So face it, if you want change, you'll have to do it the old fashioned way, by getting involved in the political process...
Jeff
When you can get 18 million Americans to decide they are willing to give up their lifestyle, risk, death, imprisonment, and put their immediate families through the sames risks, give me a call. Until then your numbers make the case for the fact that you aren't going to see a revolution here as much as you might like to. So face it, if you want change, you'll have to do it the old fashioned way, by getting involved in the political process...
Jeff
Dr. Dickie
Member
yep, I agree.
The problem we have isn't the government, they are simply a mirror of the people (politicians are soulless vessels who only CYA and reflect what they think the people want to get re-elected).
What drives me to distraction is the folks that call themselves pro-gun and liberal. Sorry, but that doesn't wash. If you think you can empower the government to have more and more control over your life and still keep your arms, then you are naive and haven't been paying attention over the last 50 years or so. The more we surrender control over our lives to the Fed, the more we become slaves.
Someone said we have free speech and freedom of elections. Sorry, but I disagree. We have free-ish speech and elections to keep the population thinking they are in control.
Look at what a candidate has to go through to get on the ballot in the 50 states. You have the freedom to vote or not, but the election is rigged from the start to favor those already in power. And the difference between the two candidates is becoming smaller and smaller as NO ONE says what they believe, they take a poll and parrot what they think we want to hear (and how come they can't understand that we understand this??).
Freedom of speech? Oh yeah, Google Trent Lott's recent comments. Look at the PC crowd, they are not about empowering minorities, they are about shutting down debate because they cannot complete with rational ideas. Say the wrong thing, you are racist. Not censorship (that has to be the government), but a serious intolerance of other ideas--this from the folks that love to talk about tolerance. How many threads have there been about talking about shooting at work, and how many people don't because it would make the folks they work with uncomfortable? Not PC doncha know.
We have a lot more freedoms that some other countries, but if the folks from the 1930s could be transported from then to now, they would grab a Garand and be ready to battle the Nazis that have taken over America--from their point of view.
Think we can have socialized medicine and guns? I bet ya we won't. If the hiladabeast gets elected and we get socialized medicine, how long do you think it will be before the "crisis" of gunshot victims flooding into our emergency rooms is used as the reason to ban guns? The government is only doing it for our own good, doncha know. The medical establishment has already laid the ground work for the "health crisis" from guns. They will only be trying to cut costs to the taxpayers and make us safer. It's all for our own good, how can you be against that!!
I kinda agree, we need to be riding the politicians for all they are worth (which really isn't much), but for real change, we have to get the hearts and minds of the populace. How? I haven't got a clue, if I knew I would be on it 24/7. I try to convert others to shooting, but it is really more than that. It is taking responsibility for your life. A majority of people in this county do not want to do that (they don't have the time, their lives are too busy and complicated as it is--
)
God help us 20 years from now if we don't.
Still, history shows the funniest things can have big changes, so keep up the good fight, and don't give up hope. All is not lost yet, though I must agree with those that see the light at the end of the tunnel as just another freight train.
It was long slow slide to where we are, and Reagan was only 20 years ago. Things can swing the other way.
The problem we have isn't the government, they are simply a mirror of the people (politicians are soulless vessels who only CYA and reflect what they think the people want to get re-elected).
What drives me to distraction is the folks that call themselves pro-gun and liberal. Sorry, but that doesn't wash. If you think you can empower the government to have more and more control over your life and still keep your arms, then you are naive and haven't been paying attention over the last 50 years or so. The more we surrender control over our lives to the Fed, the more we become slaves.
Someone said we have free speech and freedom of elections. Sorry, but I disagree. We have free-ish speech and elections to keep the population thinking they are in control.
Look at what a candidate has to go through to get on the ballot in the 50 states. You have the freedom to vote or not, but the election is rigged from the start to favor those already in power. And the difference between the two candidates is becoming smaller and smaller as NO ONE says what they believe, they take a poll and parrot what they think we want to hear (and how come they can't understand that we understand this??).
Freedom of speech? Oh yeah, Google Trent Lott's recent comments. Look at the PC crowd, they are not about empowering minorities, they are about shutting down debate because they cannot complete with rational ideas. Say the wrong thing, you are racist. Not censorship (that has to be the government), but a serious intolerance of other ideas--this from the folks that love to talk about tolerance. How many threads have there been about talking about shooting at work, and how many people don't because it would make the folks they work with uncomfortable? Not PC doncha know.
We have a lot more freedoms that some other countries, but if the folks from the 1930s could be transported from then to now, they would grab a Garand and be ready to battle the Nazis that have taken over America--from their point of view.
Think we can have socialized medicine and guns? I bet ya we won't. If the hiladabeast gets elected and we get socialized medicine, how long do you think it will be before the "crisis" of gunshot victims flooding into our emergency rooms is used as the reason to ban guns? The government is only doing it for our own good, doncha know. The medical establishment has already laid the ground work for the "health crisis" from guns. They will only be trying to cut costs to the taxpayers and make us safer. It's all for our own good, how can you be against that!!
I kinda agree, we need to be riding the politicians for all they are worth (which really isn't much), but for real change, we have to get the hearts and minds of the populace. How? I haven't got a clue, if I knew I would be on it 24/7. I try to convert others to shooting, but it is really more than that. It is taking responsibility for your life. A majority of people in this county do not want to do that (they don't have the time, their lives are too busy and complicated as it is--
)God help us 20 years from now if we don't.
Still, history shows the funniest things can have big changes, so keep up the good fight, and don't give up hope. All is not lost yet, though I must agree with those that see the light at the end of the tunnel as just another freight train.
It was long slow slide to where we are, and Reagan was only 20 years ago. Things can swing the other way.
TallPine
Member
Heck, you can't even convince half the people here on THR to end the war on drugs. Mention Ron Paul and you are a "lunatic" or something ...
Forget revolution - most of the country isn't worth saving anyway, let alone having to govern. The best I can hope for is a USSR style breakdown into states and/or regions.
Let's play the numbers game.
I stated that 6% of the population is required, NOT 6% of citizens.
20.6 million hispanics, maybe 50% support "La Raza" and "New Aztlan"
= 10.3 million
18 million-10.3 million = 7.7 million
80 million gun owners, maybe as few as 1% or as many as 10% would fight a sweeping ban = 800,000 to 8 million
7.7 million-800,000 = 6.9 million
7.7 million-8 million = -300,000
The numbers required are not that hard to come by.
Jefferson
I stated that 6% of the population is required, NOT 6% of citizens.
20.6 million hispanics, maybe 50% support "La Raza" and "New Aztlan"
= 10.3 million
18 million-10.3 million = 7.7 million
80 million gun owners, maybe as few as 1% or as many as 10% would fight a sweeping ban = 800,000 to 8 million
7.7 million-800,000 = 6.9 million
7.7 million-8 million = -300,000
The numbers required are not that hard to come by.
Jefferson
30 cal slob
Member
wolverines!
lol.
lol.
- Status