Is revolting against our government a viable option now?

Then what are you trying to say here? Since the 4th and 5th Amendments grant the right to privacy, albeit not explicitly, violating that right is unconstitutional.

 

The document says it is the right and duty of the people to throw off such a govt. It does not say to make a political attempt and if that fails and the tyranical govt is still in power, well then too bad, everyone just has to live and suffer the abuses of the govt. Clearly every option is open to the people.

 

If it fails due to a lack of support, that would tell me that a majority of people don't feel change is necessary and perhaps the government is tyranical in the eyes of a minority. If everyone was living and suffering under the abuses of the govenment, then any political action conducted would succeed.

Either way I don't interpret the language to indicate that a violent overthrow of the government is called for.

 

the so-called mass majority you are talking about have never read it, or cannot read.

 

BS, you are just projecting your warped view of those that do not agree with you not reality. Clue: try overthrowing the legally elected government of this Nation without the support of The People that same majority you claim are ignorant will put you six feet underground.

 

If there was a revolution in the USA, what changes would the revolutionaries want to make?

do they have any idea??

 

Memberships in militas have skyrocketed since Obama came into office. The gun-control thing, was a horrible idea. The mental health bill thing is crazy, "if you've ever been admitted to a mental hospital you can not own a gun". What about people admitted for anxiety or depression? Are they dangerous? I got admitted as a kid for masturbating in my aunts underwear. Am I too dangerous to own a gun? Thankfully my state doesen't submit records. American's are crazy, and Obama's leading the charge in backwards and destructive thinking. I like some of what he's done, but homo-marrigage, gun-control, equal pay, and a genderless society is not something I like. If it reached a serious breaking point, such as extreme privacy violations in the guise of "security", a nanny orwellean 1984 government, yes. Me and my friend actually are thinking of forming a milita.

Thomas Jefferson; "When you sacrafise freedom for security, you lose both".

- - - Updated - - -

By the way, I would support a milita that fought for freedom from government tyranny. Make the drinking age 18, legalize softdrugs, make America more relaxed like it used to be. Fight for traditional gender-roles.

 

That's strictly speculation on your part.

 

Revolution is never a VIABLE option. It wasn't even in the first one which would have failed if the French had not supported it. Conversely, a government with NO popular support cannot stand but a Revolution is hardly ever needed in that case. Revolutions only succeed very rarely as is illustrated by the French, the Russian and the several in Latin America. We were very lucky to have an overarching leader of absolutely unquestionable integrity in George Washington as we were rapidly descending into a chaos comparable to the French Terror in 1783

 

sounds like you want a very small minority of Americans to impose massive revolution and change upon the public, regardless if they want it.

 

So, according to your view, if the mass society like to rape and slit little girls throats, and a small minority wanted to change this, it would be bad if the public didn't want it. That was the same variables you used just different number.

 

Glad you asked. First and most importantly, the rights of the people should be less vague. There is entirely too much room for Courts to interpret away rights. The Tenth Amendment, for instance, is supposed to be a broad declaration that the people and the states, not the federal government, hold most of the power, but its vagueness has resulted in the tenth Amendment counting for nothing. I can think of no time when it has even been considered in a Supreme Court ruling. Second, the powers of the government need to be more tightly defined. Over the years, the government has gone from a position of delegated powers to a position of virtually unlimited power, even eschewing the checks and balances such as the legislative branch determining when we go to war. In short, the "changes" should be to close the loopholes which have allowed politicians to subvert the intentions of the Constitution, and to reinforce the People as the master.

 

Not an interpretation, It is directly stated in it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Declaration of Independence.

 

See, that's where you and I differ; I don't read it as a violent overthrow; to alter or abolish to me is to use the mechanism in place to remove the government and that means either impeachment or by voting them out of office.

 

really...............what do you call the 1% of the world's population again? Homosexual???

 

If a political approach fails due to a lack of suport from the people, then fine. The people wold have decided they like the system.

If the political approach fails because the govt abuses the process and prevents it from working, or if the people decide on reform and the govt ignores the reforms, then all options are on the table.

You dislike violent overthrow, everyone does, but violent overthrow to restore the nation is completely valid. Remember, the writers and signers of the Declaration were justifying their violent overthrow with that document.

 

Here are some things you should consider:

​

1. The Declaration of Independence is NOT speaking in abstract terms it is speaking about specific PAST events. Specifically, it is speaking about the despotic foreign Monarchy of King George III of England. It is NOT laying the groundwork for revolt against the government of the United States of America.

2. The Declaration of Independence is NOT the law. it is merely the Declaration of Independence From King George's England.

3. The United States Constitution IS law and it makes treason the supreme crime. The penalty for it is death. Under statutes passed directly pursuant to the authority of the Constitution, even talking about or suggesting overthrowing, putting down, or destroying the Government of the United states by force -- or advocating the desirability of that -- is a crime carrying 20 years imprisonment. 18 USC, 2384 and 2385.

4. The illegality of "secession" was settled once and for all by the death of 500,000 dead Americans in the Civil War (the equivalent of 5 million today).

5. The United States Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines stand ready to put down any revolt or attempted secession by the tiny numbers of idiots who contemplate such things.

6. The United States is NOT an oligarchy, nor is it a democracy. It is and always has been a Constitutional Republic governed by elected representatives. Representatives that YOU put in office.

 

That doesn't seem to require a revolution, really. One landmark ruling basing itself on the Tenth Amendment could restore it to power. As far as the rest goes you're the one who seems overly vague. No offense intended, but you should include some specific examples if you want to be clear.

 

Democratic elections are the inherent means of redressing perceived malfeasance by those who conduct government of, by, and for the People.

A few snivelers alienated from America resorting to violence doesn't make them patriots, no matter what excuses they spout; it makes them criminals.

Those in power refusing to hold democratic elections would disenfranchise and release the People to overthrow that fraudulent government, nothing else.

 

Well that really begs the question, at what point do the elections become nothing more than a sham? The USSR had elections. So did Saddam's Iraq. When a powerful political machine makes sure that no one but the pre-selected "chosen ones" can even get on the ballot, you have been effectively disenfranchised. We have a choice of two parties, all others effectively excluded. Two is "coincidentally" the smallest number of choices you can have while still maintaining the illusion that there is really a choice. So what we have is just a tag team. "Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos."

 

It does not have to be, under certain circumstances you can overthrow it peacefully, but you can also do it with violence if that is the only way to do it. Otherwise, Peace is always the best option. It is an option on the table but not one we should reach for immediately.

 

As long as the People support the current two-party system, nominating process, and the their election of a preferred candidate, malcontents can sputters all they want. The People retain the power to change the government without killing one another. If that means limiting the fat cats power to buy elections or eliminating the fixes in the system that perpetuate the duopoly, those and other remedial measures can be achieved via the ballot.

Realistically, revolution is self-indulgent talk by those alienated from the People

 

Generally obvious points, but thats not the conversation. The question was specifically about the Declaration, not the law.

But anyway.....

Your item 4 is debatable.
Your item 5 is very questionable.
Your item 6 is flat out wrong. The US was a Constitutional Republic, no longer. The idea that people actually control the govt because every 2 or 4 or 6 years the people get to pretend to have some sort of input into the system is ridiculous.

 

Realistically? You dare use the word realistically? You just said that we can stop rigged electrions, via the ballot! How realistic is that? You do know what it means to rig an election, right?

 

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. We don't just "pretend" to have "some sort of input" genius. Every two years we can replace the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate. Every four years we can replace the President. Every 6 years therefore we can replace the entire Senate --1/3 every two years. In my lifetime, we have had 12 presidents with very widely differing points of view and political philosophies. All of them were selected by WE the people. if you don't like living in a Constitutional Republic, seriously -- why don't you try something else? I have been to more than 60 countries and have yet to find even one that is even 10% as good or as free as the United States of America. If you think you feel alienated here -- try ANY OTHER country in the world. I promise you won't be able to wait to get home. But -- if you find one you like better -- by all means stay. And leave this great nation to those of us who love it.

And of course you are dead wrong about "the question" it is not about the Declaration. It is whether revolting against the government is a viable option. My points are SPOT on -- each and every one of them -- and the answer is a loud, resounding and very clear NO.