Is revolting against our government a viable option now?

And if there is still any doubt about the upside down values of the govt:

 

Does any one on this thread know its countries history, and how and why we are a independent country to start with
we became one by doing the very dam thing you are against us doing again

here I will leave you with a quote from one of the very important authors of the document that made us a great nation

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Thomas Jefferson

 

"Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace."


Dwight Eisenhower

 

No, revolting is not viable quite yet. What you need is a few more martyrs for the cause. Weaver, god bless 'im, didn't quite do it. Koresh (a 2nd Amendment ally if ever there was one) didn't do it either. Even Tim McVeigh couldn't get the ball rolling. Maybe that old cowboy down in Nevada will have better luck. What you need is a 'shot heard 'round the world' type thang. Seems those martyr-types must be hard to come by. Maybe you just aren't getting 'em young enough.

 

The constitution doesn't say jack squat about what the people can and can't do. The document places restraints on our government, not the people.

 

It says what people can do in the places where it specifically mentions a right. I do understand how it's worded.

And it allows powers to the federal government to place restraints on the people, such as suspension of habeus corpus and martial law in times of rebellion.

 

At this point, there probably aren't enough people so disenchanted with the US government that a "shot heard 'round the world" would do much to spark open rebellion. But if enough people continue to try to get their "fair share" back from the government and also try, like Congressmen, to avoid paying taxes in any way possible, it might accelerate the bankruptcy of Washington, DC, and we could hope for a "velvet revolution", without bloodshed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution

 

Feel free to quote the part of the Constitution that states that armed rebellion is a legal means of changing the government.

BTW, is that the same Thomas Jefferson who engaged in one of the largest violations in history of the Constitution?

 

Marshal law isn't mentioned in the constitution. Article 1 section 9 does grant congress the right to suspend habeas corpus, that is true.

 

But starting too early is also a problem. Look at Syria and Egypt. Finding the right time is important and the founders being very intelligent men saw that starting too early or late is the difference between liberty and death.

 

You're right.. I used the wrong phrase.. I meant using the militia to stop an insurrection.

 

Lets say you guys have your revolt. How does this help the USA, me, and my family? I mean you are going to take a stable and prosperous country and turn it into a war zone. Most likely millions will die and the world economy will crash causing chaos. After the first year when harvests are greatly reduced you will have famine and disease begin to strike and millions more will die. So how exactly does destroying our country preserve our constitution?

 

I think the Constitution is irrelevant. Federalism itself is failing us. We don't need people to "take up arms". We need states to say "No more."

 

Logically, the Constitution shouldn't have any binding authority except over the fifty or so men who signed it,

Beyond that, the original intent and spirit of the Constitution is entirely dead, anyway, and the Bill of Rights is void where prohibited by law. The Supreme has upheld executive orders allowing the killing the an American citizen by drone for speaking out in Yemen, violating both the free speech and due process clauses, and the 9th Amendment; reporters have been jailed for not revealing their notes, and a White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives has been established both of which violate the First Amendment; the Supreme Court decision of Kelo vs New London, CT violates several amendments and on and on.

A velvet revolution in which North Americans simply laughed the US Congress out of existence and refused to pay taxes to Washington wouldn't necessarily cause any deaths at all. How it would help you is that you would probably have more money in your pocket.

 

Now see a bloodless revolution would be nice in theory but with the fall of the US congress and government would cause wide spread ramifications throughout the country and the world. Instead of me listing all the possible effect allow me to ask you what would the worst case scenario in your mind be for a peaceful revolution where our government falls? Because if Congress is forced to not exist and no taxes are paid there are going to be consequences.

The point of this is I want people to think about the long term ramifications of their ideas or be convinced that their plan is correct.

 

Your points are well-taken, but I don't think that you have anything to worry about for a long time. In the stifling Soviet bureaucracy there was almost nothing being produced, and literally no bread or other foodstuffs in the stores in Moscow except such oddities as five-gallon jars of pickled cherries, and most medicines contained little, if any, active ingredients, when Gorbachev threw in the towel; and still there are Russians who long for the return of hard-core communism, except that they want to double-down and get anther Stalin in power to "get things straightened out."

But, it will probably be a long while before we attain that kind of Workers Paradise here.

 

You presume the worst case scenario. A revolt is not necessarily a wide spread armed civil war, its not a discrete change from peace to civil war. There are many steps in between and a productive revolution can be bloodless and non-violent. The degree of violence is mainly driven by the degree the govt insists on protecting its power.

I disagree with your assumption that the US will remain stable and prosperous. Regarding prosperity, many people think the US has passed the pinnacle and we are on the downslope (for example, 14% of parents think their children will be better off than their parents, 65% think children will be worse, 21% dont know http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...hildren_will_be_better_off_than_their_parents). There are major financial troubles (the debt, the rapidly growing entitlement costs, the global shift away from the US$, unemployment, globalization) with no solution on the horizon.

Whether the economic situation collapses suddenly, or gradually degrades, it will reach a point at which people will not tolerate it and then there will not be any stability.

On the political side, there is the loss of freedoms, the grossly expanding and ever more intrusive govt, the divide of the US into the government and the governed, and the operation of the US as an oligarchy. That exacerbates the economic decline, and means the govt is going to look at the dissatisfaction of the people in an us-versus-them frame of mind and will respond forcefully.

Today, life is good. Not as good as 10 years ago. But look at the trend.

 

Always presume the worst case scenario will happen. Only when you are prepared to except those consequences should you move forward with an endeavor. What I states in my original post is not the worst case scenario, only the most likely. There are far worse and I do not believe the people advocating revolution are really prepared for that. I know for a fact that most of the likely outcomes in these scerios leads to my family being in danger so I am not for a revolution at all unless it is to protect that family from harm.

 

I understand, many people including myself have the same thoughts. But revolution may be forced upon you by forces (including the govt) beyond your control. Just the knowledge that people are discussing this subject is an indication of how bad the situation has become. And its not just people on a forum that are discussing this subject, politicians are openly talking about about a Constitutional convention, major reform, revolts of the people, and revolution. Some such as Harry Reid denigrate the idea and call it a fringe idea for nuts (but the govt side always calls the opposition - even benign people like the Tea Party - crazy and fringe), but they are still talking about it which means they recognize the trend.

 

To be honest I have not seen anything different then what has been seen before. There are always talks of a new Constitutional convention and always groups that think that people are going to revolt. But I look around here in Kansas and all I see are a bunch of people who want to be left alone to raise their families. The people seem content and beyond complaining about a few local issues like crime or street repair do not seem in any way ready to revolt. Heck most dont even bother to write their Representative about issues. The only time I really hear any of this stuff is on these forums. So I disagree I do still consider it fringe movements and Keyboard cowboys talking about it.

 

Not a chance, imo. Its easy to talk on websites but when the bullets start flying patriots start disappearing.

First off most of us are out of shape from too much web ,tv and watching other people play sports. Second many here now don't give a crap about this nation or ' freedom' just what they can get from it. Third we are so out numbered it ain't even funny. That's my take on the situation, a very sad one indeed but I speak from experience.

 

there is no reason to stage a violent revolution.

all that call for this are a bunch of gutless, cowardly chicken-hawk, armchair patriots.

who ain't gonna do (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Location matters. Where I live, people are extremely upset, and very active and vocal. Florida this week passed the demand for an Article 5 Constitutional Convention (Alaska also passed it this week). I overhear people talking about politics in the gym, at work, even in the grocery, and its all about reining in the govt.

People here want to be left alone also, just like where you live. We want to raise our families, do our jobs, run our businesses, coach the kids soccer team, and basically live life. Instead we have been knocked out of our lives by govt intrusion into our personal lives, our jobs, families, and churches.

Eventually you will get knocked out of your routine by some type of govt interference.

 

It could happen but it would have to be something huge for me to want the government to be replaced. As to a revolution frankly I would rather emigrate then endanger my family. Only if prevented or to protect my family would I take up arms.

As to a convention, be careful what you wish for because then the old document is scrapped and ANY thing can be discussed. You may be shocked on the kind of BS people will try and include into that kind of document.

 

I'm hearing the same comments, and government intrusion into people's lives is relatively light down here compared to places like New Jersey where bureaucracy is the main growth industry, and property taxes and other taxes to pay for it are becoming confiscatory.

But, even down here the trend doesn't look too good. Here's an example, published by Reuters, of Florida bureaucrats trying to pass a law that will require craft brewers like Intuition Aleworks and Bold City Brewing to sell their beer to licensed distributors and then buy it back from them in order to continue to market their products in supermarkets and liquor stores.

What would Sam Adams have said about that?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/...-to-distributors-then-buy-it-back-for-resale/