Under what circumstances would violent revolution be justified?

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

After reading the responses I received to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x77327#77347

it seems that many people here do not feel that the right to keep and bear arms is a deterrent to oppressive government. This is something I simply cannot fathom.

I don't maintain that a revolt would not be bloody; it almost always is. But the Constitution was founded upon the ideal that when the Government ceases to serve the people, the people have the duty to revolt and usurp.

That leads me to the question of when, if ever, would a violent revolution ever be justified in America?

I'm not talking about a few whackos in a fortified compound down in Texas or blowing up Government buildings in Ohio. I'm talking about the masses taking up arms and storming Washington D.C. to remove presumed tyrants from office.

Personally, I'd like to believe that America would be the last country in the world for this to happen in, but that it could and should happen under the right circumstances. I think it would require flagrant arrogance on the part of our elected leadership, exhibiting a seequential dismantling of the Constitution, egregious deviations from American ideals (such as mass internments without due process of citizens), hunger/starvation, etc.

[swag]

1. "When in the course of human events, etc. etc."

[leftofthedial]

2. these circumstances

2000 was a coup

2002 cemented it

we now live under a dictatorship

if this election is tainted, it's time to reclaim democracy or abandon it.

[Revolution1]

8. I don't know

about the dictatorship comment. Seems a little extreme. And I think discussing a bloody revolt is also silly. I am starting to get a little worried about some of the views from a few characters on this site. One thread about guns is shut down because "Guns Are Evil" while another thread wants to discuss a bloody revolt and when was a good time. I am gonna need a drink soon with all of this. And I don't even drink.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

46. You don't like it here?

Why not?

[leftofthedial]

60. go ahead and start drinking

sounds like you're gonna need it

[Ladyhawk]

59. It's an oligarchy of the rich, not a dictatorship.

At least, that's the way it's headed.

[leftofthedial]

61. the oligarchy backs a one-party government

more like the USSR post-stalin than anything else.

[ck4829]

3. If Kerry wins, we will not need a revolution

However, our nation is serving the interests of Halliburton and the Christian Right more than it is the common people. Bush and his misadministration have served basically everybody but the People. So, I think if Bush wins we will be one step closer to a revolution.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ck4829]

31. I couldn't fight in the above-said revolution if it happened

I didn't say I would fight in it, I was just predicting what could happen in the near future. I don't even own a single gun nor do I support violence in any way, and I hope we never have to resort to any violence just because of an election.

[lukasahero]

18. Re: a revolution

I've been thinking about this alot lately. I'm seeing here pictures and hearing reports of the number of people showing up at the Kerry/Edwards rallies. However when I listen to "the news" or read other "mainstream" reports, that's not the situation being described. The polls (and the pols) still make it sound like this is a race "much too close to call". That's the info that "most" American's are being given.

If W does "win" in November, through less than honest means, will anyone in America think anything went awry? To have a revolution, the fraud committed on the American people will have to be seen for what it is and I don't think "mainstream" America is seeing it (since it's not being shown). Does this scare anyone besides me?

[Fovea]

4. When constitutional protections of due process both fail

and are incapible of self correction.

Such examples might be...

1. Corruption of the SCOTUS that negates the rights of Americans to oparticipate in govt.

2. Patent corruption of Congress, such as the use of force, threat, or guile to subvert the will of the people.

3. Executive Malfeasance that harms the welfare of the citizens of the US.

But don't worry, the sistem wurks--stuff liek taht cant' hpaan her...

[ContraBass Black]

5. I'd rate chances of nonviolent revolution better.

I think a general strike or other action en masse would be less damaging to the people and resources, have more support from the general population, and be more difficult for the government to resist. If we take up guns, we could simply be classified as terrorists and shot.

[Gman]

6. If millions of people stood in front ot the WH or Congress

that would definitely force the issue. That happened in the Phillipine when that lady whose name I now forget was denied the presidency even though she won the election after Marcos left. I forget the details, but throngs of people gathered in Manilla and she ended up taking office.

So it doesn't necessarily have to be violent. I think the governnment would ultimately decide if it would be violent. If the government were to fire the first shot, the decision would be made.

[FreakinDJ]

25. Already happened in the United States

The WW1 veterans camped out on the congress lawn in tents waiting the benifits they were promised

Finally the army was called out to clear them away. Can't remember how many were killed

[MrBenchley]

7. Somebody buys a gun, obviously...

"I'm talking about the masses taking up arms and storming Washington D.C. to remove presumed tyrants from office."
Helluva rallying cry so far..."Those of us who pack will protect you....Not owning a gun is a foolish mistake!"

[Medical Speaking]

12. Ready

I am a Viet-Nam vet and I have everything ready to go in case it is needed.

Kerry/Edwards 2004

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

20. Thank you for your service.

I'll have your six.

[FreakinDJ]

27. Yea right Hero

You and what ever little pea shooter you have ain't no match for M-60 machine guns.

Taking out targets over 1000 meters....no shit
Seen it / done it

Now what you got fat boy

[MrBenchley]

34. You will notice however, WHO

the industry trying to sell those pea-shooters is in bed with....

[sui generis]

40. kind of like praying to god to save us from his followers

I have a great deal more to fear from a self-appointed militia appropriating my belongings than from the government they're fighting against, and I sure as hell don't want to be caught in the crossfire between several militias struggling for power among themselves.

What would incite this fellow anyway? Taking away 2nd amendment protections? Probably - but to me that sounds like the criteria for determining what makes an "oppressive" government is very subjective.

Define "oppressive"? Who is enforcing this oppression? We don't have Imperial Stormtroopers here. Is the government going to just start rounding up southerners and people from Idaho and putting them in camps? Or is "oppressive" being forced to accept affirmative action or sexual-orientation antidiscrimination laws?

What would REALLY incite a civil war that would require guns and who gets to say "go"? That's what's wrong with that 2nd amendment scenario.

[MrBenchley]

53. Remember, the Second Amendment

specifies "well regulated militias" not every yokel who can tote a gun...

We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration. "

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html

[Bandit]

9. Do you feel the Bush* government would act in the same manner as

the Chinese government during Tienanmen Square? If you were to stand in front of a tank would it stop for you? Is your little pop gun going to fight against a tank? Armed rebellion against tanks and Apache Helecopters is like pissing into the wind. Using Iraq as an example I suppose it could be done with tremendous casualties but I don't think you would have the same support here that the Iraqis enjoy in their country.

[seabeyond]

10. man i dont wanna fight

kickin feet into dirt. that is the wussy dem in me, lool lol. cant we all jsut get along.

who is to know. will haev to wait and see what point i am willing for physical fight, way beyond on my barometer

[sui generis]

11. it's pure fallacy to think

that even well organized militias could "rise up" against our military. Owning guns are not a deterrant to oppressive government. If our government wanted to physically oppress you, you would be mashed like a flea, regardless of how right or wrong you were.

The alternative is that you would have a formless sort of civil war: on the one hand you would have vigilantes seizing territory by eminent domain, whether civilians were on their side or not, and you would have Americans killing Americans for all the reasons of war. If I don't agree that you should seize my house or vehicle or farmland as a battle front, you will probably make sure I am out of the way. And there are plenty of people who would disagree with both sides, so you would just have a bunch of disorganized crazy people running around shooting everything that moved.

And if there are other ideological scores to settle on the way, such as one of your militias thinks gays are a blight on the face of the earth, well, a few of those people might disappear too.

Guns are not a realistic solution, except maybe in some hollywood fantasy.

[seabeyond]

13. i see it, if it got to the point

would have to be more concentration (internment) camps, ww11 type situation. and the other nations across the world would have to help in invading and taking down the government

[Sterling]

48. I used to think that but....

Iraqnam has shown me that the US military is not capable of controling a large population. They (the gov and military)could make life hell for the people but they could not suppress a large scale sustained revolt like we see in Iraq.

Not to say I want to be involved in anything like that. I just see it as a posibility. I don't think it will be soon but who knows what events could set something like that off in an instant. I think it would be very factional. I see ultra left and right wing groups working together in certain circumstances, but unltimatly fighting each other as well.

[FreakinDJ]

14. You have just set off ECHLON's alarms and bells

<<< I'm not talking about a few whackos in a fortified compound down in Texas or blowing up Government buildings in Ohio. I'm talking about the masses taking up arms and storming Washington D.C. to remove presumed tyrants from office. >>>

Give me a break -

So you own a few guns, you go out to the rifle range once a week or even possibly shoot a squirrel now and then.

You have what it takes to pull the trigger on another human being?

Better yet you have what it takes to pull the trigger on several human beings while bullets are whizzing by your head, heavy munitions are exploding all around you and you are completely out numbered 100/1 by a superior force in full command of the air / airwaves / reconnocese, armed with heavy artillery and armored vehicles.

Skip it..they just traced your ip, triangulated the cell phone call you just made to Mama shitting your pants and artillery shells or coming in from 29 km away

Good bye dreamer

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

23. These are not the REAL DUers

We have been envaded by the gun groups sure as white on rice.

They are probably trying to get enough crap on this board to get it shut down

[seabeyond]

26. ah, so if we dont sit in one position

as a whole then we dont belong. nope nope nope, i get to be a liberal too, even in my belief that i dont stop another having a gun. adn if he/she breaks law with gun, then punishment is jail

[FreakinDJ]

28. I think istigating revolution is still a treasonable offence

and certainly enough for Asscrack to declare us a subversive group and come down on ever one here with the full Orwellion powers of Patriot Act II

[seabeyond]

35. oooosh so you go with the shut up theory

i cannot do, lol lol

what if we have a locked down society. and if al rights taken away, and others being punished with no rights for our safety

are we still to keep mouth shut

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

32. Who exactly are "these people"?

Help me understand to whom you are referring?

[FreakinDJ]

37. You especially are "These people"

What do you think is going on right now

FBI, CIA, NSA supercomputers are tracking you ip all across the net by now, tracking and recording all associations you made to known "Hot List" in their data base

HaHa

You think for 1 minute they do not know exactly who you are.

Shit by now they are checking Yo Mama out too

Just go apply for a job as a Mailman now and see what happens Now smart guy

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

41. So "these people" are essentially those who disagree with you.

Thanks for clearing that up.

It's nice to know you're so afraid of your government that you'll do whatever they tell you.

The only thing worse than a goose-stepping citizen, is a boot-licking citizen.

[AmerDem]

56. Good One!

give him hell!!:toast:

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

30. I'm shaking in my boots.

{pees pants}


HAR!

[FreakinDJ]

33. Kinda reminds me of

Those pussies that used to jump off the bus. We used to just call them "fresh meat", or "meat" for short. some of them, heck 1/2 of them never even had the chance to fire a shot before they were dead

You ain't really got the balls

No one knows what they are going to do, especialy brag-hards. The ones who THINK they can.

These gun idiots only know the sound the bullet makes when the hammer falls. They have No idea how those same bullets sound as they whizz by in a fire fight

Meow Meow Meow

That is what we used to say to all the guys that froze or pissed the first time

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

45. Is this the kind of antagonistic discussions that are prevalent here?

I simply asked a question pertaining to when a violent revolution would become necessary. I didn't advocate it or claim the time ripe. Now you're here with "you ain't got the balls" and such inane drivel hardly merits a response, but then again, I'm not an appeaser.

Roll over and play dead for your government if you choose. Sell you soul to Satan. Whatever blows you're hair back.

[seabeyond]

47. its called diversity rusty

isnt it grand in all its mess, lol lol

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

50. I call it douchebaggery. n/t

[seabeyond]

51. see we each get to create how we see things

yup yup yup

not realy knowing exactly what douchebaggery is to be honest,

[notadmblnd]

44. And thus the reason for his post

IMO thats exactly why some (especially new posters) people post thes type of inflamatory posts here. They want to see if we take the bait. well here's one fish that just ain't gonna bite!

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

52. What bait?

I sincerely doubt this forum would even exist if the people here feared their government as much as you believe.

I'm still waiting for the FBI and Homeland security agents to come busting through the door because I was so pompous to ask such a question as "When is revolution justified?"

Gimme a break.

[Webster Green]

15. Here's one opinion.......pretty radical dude, I guess.....

"This country with its institutions belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right to dismember or overthrow it."
-Abraham Lincoln

17. A quibble with a point - it might be important

I'm not sure I'd agree that the Constitution was founded upon the ideal that when the Government ceases to serve the people, the people have the duty to revolt and usurp.

By the time it came around to the Constitution, things were beginning to get pretty organized after the period of the Articles of Confederation. They kept the firebrands such as Franklin and Paine out of the country and out of the Constitutional Convention.

The language about revolting and usurping was in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution and that was many years earlier
& it was something Jefferson wrote. I doubt that Hamilton and Madison held quite the same view about the role of the people.

If the founders were so interested in the people, then why did they establish the electoral college, why did they have Senators not directly elected, why did they disenfranchise so many?

[donsu]

21. the "circumstances" are here now

voting in Nov. is a dream

[LWolf]

24. I'm thinking.

At this point, my answer to your question is never.

My response to this statement:

it seems that many people here do not feel that the right to keep and bear arms is a deterrent to oppressive government

Please understand that opposing violence is not the same thing as opposing the right to keep and bear arms. It is not an attack on the 2nd amendment.

Why do I say never? Because, in my personal opinion, violence is not a legitimate solution to conflict. Every violent solution sows the seeds for future conflict and further violence. With increasingly sophisticated and destructive weaponry.

I prefer non-violent solutions. I believe that non-violence as an organizing principle underlying the way we deal with conflict is the short and long-term solution to the evolution, or extinction, of humanity. It's as simple as that.

[Cleita]

29. Revolution is the right word, but it doesn't need to be violent.

I always thought what we do at DU is part of it. If every thinking American thought of themselves as infiltrators or spies, there is a lot that can be done in the workplace and the marketplace to get the truth out. I have taken to leaving printed copies of the better and more informative articles at DU around town for people to pick up. I am very anonymous about it because I know I would be getting a visit very soon if I were up front. But this is what a bloodless revolution is about, stealth tactics.

[MrBenchley]

38. Before our "pro gun democrats" start plugging their fellow citizens

It's worth noting that every gun owner forum on the web (thehighroad, AR-15,glocksunlocked, etc.) is laden with dittohead rubbish....

I wonder why none of our gun owning democrats can't go over there and argue the Democrat point of view...

[seabeyond]

39. i tend to battle more your way

wink

[Right Makes Might]

36. I agree with you, and many others here, that

a non-violent solution would be preferable... but could that really work?

Look at their actions so far. These vampires don't care about you, me, or anyone else. They don't care about morality, law, or human suffering. All they care about is power, and they're willing to use it.

What would be needed is having the vast majority of the people either for revolution or at least neutral, which is not the situation right now, obviously. But situations change. Look at the huge difference between the weeks after 9/11 and now - thanks to the people who refused to "shut up" and "support the troops" but equally as important thanks to the fact that the vampires are being forced to piss people off in order to hold onto their power. Once you've got the people on your side, then the guns (and tanks, and heli's, and whatever) they have don't matter.

In both the Russian and Chinese revolutions the revolutionaries were pitifully outgunned (especially in China where the Nationalists were being supplied by the US) but they won because they had the people on their side. Same thing in Nepal today. And how can you tell that the Nepalese succeeding? Cuz the US has put them on their "terrorist" list. Dead give-away.

Vietnam, here we come again!

[Cleita]

43. You said:

Look at their actions so far. These vampires don't care about you, me, or anyone else. They don't care about morality, law, or human suffering. All they care about is power, and they're willing to use it.

Yes, those at the top are all those things. But their numbers are relatively small. The ignoramouses that elect them are the people I am trying to reach. Now, I've gotten into enough fruitless discussions face to face with freepers to know that they don't like to be told they have been sucking up a bunch of lies from the likes of Rush-Lie.

However, my hope is if they pick up something to read that is short but informative, they might start thinking about things. Many are already, especially the more educated ones. China has been changing because of this quiet revolution behind the Mao suits and totalitarian dictatorship. They are leaning more and more toward capitalism and the relative freedom that comes with it and the Maoists can't stop them.

[Right Makes Might]

58. The freepers will come around when

they're hit upside the head with the cosmic 2x4. Case in point: my born again fundie conservative right wing aunt complaining about the lack of socialized medicine (she and her husband are both out of work and their son was recently in a car crash.)

Look at what they've been doing - getting us into wars by invading countries for their oil, dismantling social services, grooming these reactionary, right wing religious nuts (who, BTW, do have guns) etc. And they're doing these things because they must, in order to hold onto power. And the more they do these things the more they're going to expose themselves for what they really are - a bunch of vampires who feed off the rest of us.

[noonwitch]

42. If the government were to start rounding people up by certain groups

Like if they decided to arrest and incarcerate all gays or muslims, or christians, for that matter, without cause or process, I would consider that pretty good cause to fight.

[Cleita]

49. Well, I believe it

has started already. It's not out in the open. I doubt if you would even know that your nieghbor was missing until after the fact. I don't have time to look up a link, but how about that Hispanic convert to Islam from Florida who is being held as a terrorist? I can't remember his name off hand. Also, there was some other American Arab arrested in the middle of the night recently, who dropped out of the news very quickly. I wish I had time to google this right now, but DH has a doctor's appointment so I gotta go. Will try to find these things out later.

[RetroLounge]

54. Yawn. Have at it John Wayne...

RL

[seabeyond]

55. ya well, i draw the line if he puts a woman over knee and

spanks her.

[Beam Me Up]

57. I believe all discussion of "violent revolution" should be banned from DU

For the neoconservatives to advance their agenda they must at some point equate "terrorism" with "liberalism" or the left in general in the minds of the people. Discussion such as this only serve to further this purpose by creating a public document which can be used later to show that unidentified "liberal" and "progressive" persons have considered violent revolution.

Violent revolution WILL NOT BE A GENUINE REVOLUTION; to the contrary, it will be the final justification for even the pretense of the Constitution. The neoconservative agenda not only ANTICIPATES but FOMENTS violent confrontation. If it does not happen, they will instigate it or create it. Surely you must see that the infrastructure for dealing with massive civil unrest is already in place. If we move in the direction of violence against our fellow citizens, we will have played directly into their hands.

[Right Makes Might]

62. We're not telling people how to build bombs

We're talking about what works and what doesn't.

The very fact that we risk being labeled "terrorists" because we're talking about these things just shows how thin the illusion of democracy is in this country.

[Moderator]

63. Locking

Democratic Underground's rules prohibit discussion of violent revolutions.