The American Revolution and modern times - Page 3

The American Revolution and modern times

This is a discussion on The American Revolution and modern times within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by paramedic70002 Still not saying this is about the 2A. Lets suppose there is dissent about some federal issue. Suppose a smaller group ...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 86

Thread: The American Revolution and modern times

  1. #31
    Distinguished Member Array SixBravo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    Still not saying this is about the 2A. Lets suppose there is dissent about some federal issue. Suppose a smaller group of citizens with broad vocal support were able to initiate a coup. President and Congress removed, then a call to elect new representative government with reasonable changes in Constitutional philosophy. Would America go about it's business or resist this unconventional approach to change?
    I think for the first time in a long time you would see troops occupying Washington, DC. I'm going to assume that the US military was somehow nullified... Because I can see them doing whatever it takes to stop it. You'll see some REALLY angry Marines when their paychecks stop arriving (forget that someone is messing with their country). See, in DC.. If a group did this and it was only the White House and the Capitol Building, every agency in DC would evacuate. It would be a complete breakdown of the Federal government... Depending on how dependent your state is on the Federal government, people might see varying problems as time passes. But I will tell ya, this is all bad. Think about all the contracts awarded by the government that suddenly don't mean anything... nuclear power plants, employees at inspection stations at our ports, air traffic control operators, everything... They aren't getting paid and they'll go look for a job that can give them some cash (whatever that's worth).

    But getting at the question... You'd have to have a lot of gun owners move into DC for any kind of counter-coup to succeed. Between Virginia and PA, and to some extent the counties of Maryland removed from DC's influence... You might have enough there considering it would be a disorganized mass - not like the force that beat the entirety of every police organization in the region (there are at least three separate ones in DC that I can think of off the top of my head). Assuming one could gather 'the militia' together, I think you'd see a counter-uprising. It really depends on what this rebellion was about, though. Remember, it would have to be something that incurred the wrath of a large number of very patriotic Americans and gun owners.

    It should be made clear that any disruption of the US Federal government is very very bad. It will have a wave effect that will touch every citizen of this country (and in a large number of other nations) in very serious ways. That's not my opinion, its a fact. Suddenly, the United States no longer has its power base or influence worldwide, either. And as someone else pointed-out.. Who's got control of our nukes? Would there even be anyone in the silos?

    If you like going to the store to get fresh fruit, having reliable power, your internet, and your NFL.. then it is in your best interest to help defend this country. All enemies - foreign and domestic. I suggest that if anyone here is dissatisfied with how things are currently then they get involved. Run for office. Petition the city council. Get active. If its too hard locally or you for some reason can't, then go out and look for someone in office that will lend you their ears.
    The Gunsite Blog
    ITFT / Quick Kill Review
    "It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon." - Justice Scalia, SCOTUS - DC v Heller - 26 JUN 2008


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post

    Lets suppose there is dissent about some federal issue. Suppose a smaller group of citizens with broad vocal support were able to initiate a coup. President and Congress removed, then a call to elect new representative government with reasonable changes in Constitutional philosophy. Would America go about it's business or resist this unconventional approach to change?
    Call me sentimental, but I'm fond of our constitutional republic.

    I'd likely be very annoyed with the people who decided to hold a coup.

    Annoyed enough to get branded a "reactionist, counterrevolutionary radical" and get hunted down like a dog for what I'd be doing.

  3. #33
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    The consensus of the group is that a revolt is not in the foreseeable future, and it would fail. I agree. Now lets address another issue.

    Still not saying this is about the 2A. Lets suppose there is dissent about some federal issue. Suppose a smaller group of citizens with broad vocal support were able to initiate a coup. President and Congress removed, then a call to elect new representative government with reasonable changes in Constitutional philosophy. Would America go about it's business or resist this unconventional approach to change?
    You really do like poking a stick in the hornet's nest.

    The simple answer is Americans would actively resist a domestic enemy. The military have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. And the vast majority of us understand the only reason we have survived this long in a land of opportunity and prosperity is because we have a Constitituion and we put the law above individuals. We are a nation of laws, not of men.

    Your scenario calls for illegally infiltrating and taking over Federal buildings. It calls for murdering civil servants (secret service,) murdering military personnel, and murdering or holding hostage the President, Vice President and the entire Constitutional chain of command.

    A call for new representative elections? We already have that! If you want to change the Constitution, we have a process for that, as well.

    Nothing in your scenario is plausible, which is actually very comforting. Most Americans would read about it in the news as our defenses will make it unnecessary for regular folks to become involved in quelling the insurgency.

    If, instead, you are talking about the military complex committing treason and conspiracy to overthrow the Constitutional government, then you have officially entered a third world, banana republic. And your 'rights' will no longer exist at all. But hey, if you can live on $1.00/day...

  4. #34
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,979
    We are a nation of laws, not of men.
    You use this quote alot.

    It occurs to me that you must not know many men.
    Where I live, a statement like that would get you laughed out of the place where you made it. Just a cultural difference I guess.

    We are a nation of men. The laws you speak of are only as good as the people that choose to abide by them.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  5. #35
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    You use this quote alot.

    It occurs to me that you must not know many men.
    Where I live, a statement like that would get you laughed out of the place where you made it. Just a cultural difference I guess.
    I use the phrase a lot because it seems that so few actually understand the concept. And many here so dislike the government that they consider their particular view superior to that of the whole of the United States. And that is the crux of the phrase. That no man is above the law; that we are all treated equally.

    Maybe it is a cultural thing, but anyone who laughs at (and disregards) the law should receive every measure of punishment. No special favors if you think a law is unfair not should not apply.

    We are a nation of men. The laws you speak of are only as good as the people that choose to abide by them.
    We are a nation of men who agree to abide by the law, which the men create for all of our society. That makes us a nation of laws and I am very glad that is the case. The men you speak of are only as good as their ability to live under the law. Those who live outside the law are not good men.
    Last edited by SelfDefense; June 18th, 2008 at 09:22 PM. Reason: removed provocation

  6. #36
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,979
    And many here so dislike the government that they consider their particular view superior to that of the whole of the United States
    I dont think that is the case at all. Just because we tend to question some of the actions that the government takes does not mean that we do not love this country and most things about it.

    Men that think will question the ability of a government that does not represent the best wishes of its citizens. That is a far cry from "disliking the government".

    No special favors if you think a law is unfair not should not apply.
    Fair enough. If the law is that unfair though, maybe some thinking men will nullify it if they sit on the jury.

    We are a nation of men who agree to abide by the law, which the men create for all of our society. That makes us a nation of laws and I am very glad that is the case.

    Me too.
    But the laws are made to serve MAN, not MAN to serve the LAW.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #37
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I dont think that is the case at all. Just because we tend to question some of the actions that the government takes does not mean that we do not love this country and most things about it.
    I have no problem with this. I think that all laws should be subject to continued scrutiny and argument. However, that does imply that any law should be disregarded.

    Men that think will question the ability of a government that does not represent the best wishes of its citizens. That is a far cry from "disliking the government".
    By definition the government does represent the people. That is our Constitutional form of government. In our system, almost half the people have voted for the loser and many express their anger in varying ways to varying degree. The last seven years have witnessed the most radical of responses, Bush derangement syndrome.

    Fair enough. If the law is that unfair though, maybe some thinking men will nullify it if they sit on the jury.
    No, those would be rogue jurors, who are unconcerned with the rule of law or due process. Jury nullification is an abomination and a slap in the face to every branch of government and a trashing of our Constitutional republic.

    But the laws are made to serve MAN, not MAN to serve the LAW.
    Yes, indeed. But once the laws are in place it is everyone's responsibility to obey the law or suffer the consequences.

  8. #38
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,979
    Jury nullification is an abomination and a slap in the face to every branch of government and a trashing of our Constitutional republic.
    Pure difference of opinion there.

    I happen to think that unjust laws should be nullified, therefore slapping the face of those that pushed it in the first place. As for trashing the Constitutional Republic, I tend to believe that those that are smart enough to nullify unjust laws are simply ensuring that the Constitutional Republic stays that way. But that is an argument for a different time and place.

    Yes, indeed. But once the laws are in place it is everyone's responsibility to obey the law or suffer the consequences.
    Agreed.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #39
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,525
    Before reading this thread I'm sorry to say that I thought a revolution might be good for our country. I no longer hold that view.

    Unless of course I get to be king. :)
    It is surely true that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Nor can you make them grateful for your efforts.

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,150
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Your scenario calls for illegally infiltrating and taking over Federal buildings. It calls for murdering civil servants (secret service,) murdering military personnel, and murdering or holding hostage the President, Vice President and the entire Constitutional chain of command.

    A call for new representative elections? We already have that! If you want to change the Constitution, we have a process for that, as well.
    I would hope that the elected officials would be under house arrest until replaced, and that some scenario could play out to minimize loss of life, but in these acts, some loss of life would be inevitable.

    Yes we have elections now, we just can't seem to shake the trend of returning a large number of machine parts to the machine. What would be needed in this scenario is a new machine with all new parts.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  11. #41
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    Are there any Constitutional scholars on here, if the Top levels of Govt start to come to a stand still, IE: the Senators, Congressman and President ETC all get so embroiled in a " not you, me" mentality that they all literally come to a halt. Everyone refuses to work together to get anything approved, Govt at that level is basically brought to a stand still. Who has the power to step in and make the decisions on how to fix it. When the big kids on the block refuse to play nice, who is responsible for stepping in and whipping some hiney.

    That is what I see as a top ranking possibility of the kind of turmoil that would rock the nation as a whole. Basically a break down of government more so than the govt trying to turn on it's people. Call me crazy, but put in an election of an individual to come in and take the rains, and you have Hitler in the making. He was initially elected into office on the promise of reforming the defunct govt and from which he launched his master plan that went you know where.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    Are there any Constitutional scholars on here, if the Top levels of Govt start to come to a stand still, IE: the Senators, Congressman and President ETC all get so embroiled in a " not you, me" mentality that they all literally come to a halt. Everyone refuses to work together to get anything approved, Govt at that level is basically brought to a stand still. Who has the power to step in and make the decisions on how to fix it. When the big kids on the block refuse to play nice, who is responsible for stepping in and whipping some hiney.
    ...
    That's what voting is for.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  13. #43
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by matiki View Post
    That's what voting is for.
    I understand that, but I'm talking about a total breakdown in between elections. A snowball of descent from one branch to the other, I would like to think it wouldn't happen, or that we could replace enough of the bad ones each election to keep it from happening. It's a hypothetical question. Is there any clause for the Military to step in and temporarily take over while it all gets sorted out? And then who decides when the Military withdraws back to it's primary role if they are allowed to take control.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array matiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    N.W.
    Posts
    2,917
    Quote Originally Posted by 4my son View Post
    I understand that, but I'm talking about a total breakdown in between elections. A snowball of descent from one branch to the other, I would like to think it wouldn't happen, or that we could replace enough of the bad ones each election to keep it from happening. It's a hypothetical question. Is there any clause for the Military to step in and temporarily take over while it all gets sorted out? And then who decides when the Military withdraws back to it's primary role if they are allowed to take control.
    I would like to think it wouldn't happen either, but my position remains the same, that's what voting is for.

    You have congressional representatives up for election as often as every two years. Senators serve six year terms. The President, four years. In the grand scheme of things, this was not long enough for our founding fathers to be overly concerned with such a massive break down. Their reasoning was simple, the people would duly elect new representatives and begin repairs. So to speak. Just my $.02, someone else may come along and disagree.
    "Wise people learn when they can; fools learn when they must." - The Duke of Wellington

  15. #45
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,637
    Or I guess the same could be said for a disaster that wipes out DC, However unlikely, a nuclear bomb goes off, a hurricane decimates the whole city, or the scenario of "When Mars Attacks" plays out, who takes the reigns of a runaway stage coach and tries to bring it under control.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. New Hampshire Leads Next American Revolution!
    By DOGOFWAR01 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 8th, 2009, 02:35 PM
  2. Bad guy gets shot 22 times - 17 COM with a .40 but still shoots a cop 4 times(merged)
    By razz in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: January 10th, 2009, 10:52 PM
  3. Sig Revolution?
    By Rustynuts in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 6th, 2007, 05:08 PM
  4. America's Modern Revolution
    By BAC in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2007, 06:52 PM
  5. The new Sig GSR Revolution Carry
    By MechE in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 3rd, 2006, 12:45 PM

Search tags for this page

american revolution compared to modern times
,
causes of revolution in contemporary times
,
causes of revolution in contemporary times and modern times
,
causes of revolution in modern and contemporary times
,
causes of revolution in modern and conteporary times
,

causes of revolution in modern times

,
compare the american revolution to modern times
,
could an american revolution happen in modern times
,
revolutions of modern times in america
,
what was the causes of revolution during the modern times?
,

which of the following were causes of revolutions in modern times

,

which of the following were causes of revolutions in modern times?

Click on a term to search for related topics.