i was told to move this here, "what would it take, to make the american population"

[w0nderer]

to go Armed/nonarmed revolution?

[gcomeau]

1. Extended nationwide television and internet outage. -eom

[w0nderer]

7. forgot macdonalds outage!? lol no more bread and circuses n/t

[randome]

2. The problem with 'revolution' is that many have done fine with the Digital Age.

The manufacturing jobs will not be coming back. We are in a technology/service economy now and that's not likely to change any time soon. I don't believe there is a 'tipping point' of enough people wanting revolution. IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[surrealAmerican]

3. I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

It would take first, a crisis of some major sort. Then, the failure of less radical means to address that crisis.

We would be more likely to use peaceful means to achieve the desired change, even if is a major change.

[w0nderer]

8. i'm glad you would be very likely to be peaceful

a lot of the people in the area i live...have little thought of 'peace'
they want to 'win' not 'peace'

[LanternWaste]

4. All things being equal, an extended period of famine and disease, and infrastructure collapse

All things being equal, I'd imagine an extended period (18+ months) of widespread famine and unchecked disease, and a general infrastructure collapse to a degree never seen in this country-- all with no response from the federal government.

One of the greatest accomplishments of the British Empire over the past 250 years has been the lack of revolution (esp in the middle of the 19th century when most of Europe was convulsing from internal changes) due to its government moving (sometimes slowly, other times quickly) to accept the social reforms demanded by the vox populi.

I think Washington, given the chance, would follow a similar path. Hence, little to no practical chance of revolution.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. For all the shiny objects, and food, to be unavailable

for days or weeks.

[w0nderer]

9. sadly true n/t

[haele]

6. History shows it's the bourgeoisie - the so-called "middle class" that spurs revolutions.

Gotta wait until most of the doctors, the engineers, small business owners, and the six figure types start feeling the pinch. So long as the bourgeoisie is willing to let the working poor/service economy classes struggle through day-to-day, the people who have the wealth to affect policy will continue to pick at the carcasses of those who can't fight back.

Us median wage earners (i.e. $40K - $80K annual income) and the poor/disabled don't have either the time to lobby or the funds to "revolt" whether it's armed or not. The majority of us have dependents to take care of, and not enough resources available to take care of them. A successful revolution (or even a noisy, unsuccessful one) is something that requires leadership that has both time and resources as well as passion.
We'd like to think that those with nothing left to lose will fight, but as to fight, someone who's anticipating an oncoming assault is more likely to strike hard and fight to win than someone who just got blind-sided by a truck and then started getting beat by the group of drunk a-holes riding in the truck bed.
The ability of human beings to endure all sorts of degradation heaped on themselves and their children if they feel they're in a hopeless situation is just as amazing as the ability of human beings to collectively fight if they feel they can protect what's left to them.
That's why there's both organized religion and armed enforcement. Keeps the masses in thrall of those few who can afford to buy both.

Haele

[w0nderer]

10. +++++++100000000+++++100000

wow!
ok so i'm 27k annua

but wow wow wow


i'm going to copy your post and keep it around to paste into the face of 'rich people' if that's ok?