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; OK guys I am pulling this out of thin air, just some random musings and NO I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SUGGESTING A CRIME ...
OK guys I am pulling this out of thin air, just some random musings and NO I AM NOT IN ANY WAY SUGGESTING A CRIME BE COMMITTED.
From what I have read about the American Revolution, I am really surprised that we won. If anyone can explain this to me or point me to a reference, that would be great. It seems we lost most battles, it was a minority of colonists who wanted or supported the cause, and England could have dropped the hammer on us if they hadn't been occupied putting out other fires around the globe.
The Declaration of Independence tells us that it is sometimes OK to rise up against the government. The Constitution says we can not do it; it is a crime. Nothing like this has ever been attempted since our founding. The Civil War is not applicable here. That was a war of succession, not revolt. Outside of overthrowing a King versus a representative republic, what's the difference if your inalienable rights are being taken away? I'd love to see a Constitutional think tank type scholar address this issue.
As a Patriot, I would consider joining a rebel cause if many things were to come into line: massive or unbearably incremental abuses; wide base of cohorts; chance of winning; no where else to go; moral compass; etc etc etc.
I would not, however, sacrifice myself to an ill defined and poorly organized cause. I don't want to be remembered (or forgotten) as the crazy guy who got took down by Barney after he'd had enough of the government.
So do you think a Second American Revolution would or could ever happen, or either be attempted, for any reason?
What political event or ideology would citizens be willing to take up arms for or against?
What would be the outcome of such an event?
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
I guess I'm getting cynical in my older age because I have a lot of the same thoughts. Our country seems to be too dependent and that causes instability to darken our doorway.
I don't have a good answer for your question. I do know and have experienced that a sudden/drastic change forced upon someone's way of life will create brave men stepping forward. Changes that come about gradually that slowly undermine's our way of life generally only create sheep. So watch out for the slow seemingly inocuous changes, those are the one's that will defeat you before you can even get started.
Helpful hints on pushing back and strengthening the 2A:
As far as what would trigger it? Most likely a change in political power followed by several 'executive orders' that severely changed the way people live their life. The slow erosion of our rights is an entirely different thing, and most likely there would not be a revolution, but there would be a collapse and the strong would rebuild out of the chaos, probably using the Original Consititution, but changing several things to ensure Federal Power could never get that strong again.(at least for another 200-300 years, anyway)
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Who is John Galt?
They have tanks, air superiority, and heavy artilery. The absolute best the civilian forces can hope for is a few Cessnas with some neutered 1919s. poking out of the sides
There will not be another Bunker Hill, or Thermopylae. Any and all "revolutionaries" will be labeled terrorists and dealt with likewise.
The war of public opionion would be lost before it even began. Thanks to the wussification of the nation.
There are things worth dying for, and sometimes death is preferable to servitude. But one really must understand their odds and then decide their actions.
Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas are the best examples of how our current society treats those who go against the government. It would do people well to remember that, and once again plan accordingly
By the way when do we start? Just kidding..ok maybe not
"For the Lord your God will bless you in all your harvest and in all the work of your hands." Deuteronomy 16:15
Difference being...those who were at Ruby Ridge and Waco had already broken laws of this nation. I DO NOT necessarily agree with the way either case was handled. I also DO NOT see where these people felt they ahd a leg to stand on. They broke STANDING laws...as opposed to a situation which I feel could cause a second Revolution where the laws were changed to make us criminals.
As for the swift and certain death part...I'm not so sure the National Guard or the Army would be willing to kill thousands of citizens who refuse to give up their rights...the rights these guys have been defending since enlistment. The brass maybe, but not the grunts.
Any way, I have been preparing myself for either future...and recommend the same for those of you who still rely on store bought food.
They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Previously known as "cjm5874"
Self-Defense posted the following in a different thread. His point is I think meaningful. So long as elections work, and so long as ordinary people have the opportunity to run for office, there is no need for rebellion. Now we might (some here anyway) rant and rave about particular candidates, but the fact is most have very ordinary roots within the middle class or even lower middle and below sometimes, and have risen on hard work, merit, luck, and perserverance. Not all are born with a silver foot in their mouth.
From a post elsewhere here by SD:
"Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."
SD commented on the above: "The fact is that just because some think the government is tyrannical does not mean it is the case. Take up arms against a duly elected representative government and the consequences will be no different than in Shay's rebellion or Waco, Texas."
I have personally known several people in very high office; undersecretaries, agency heads, and I have met Congressmen. All were just ordinary folk trying to do their jobs. We need to step back from these flights of fancy about rebellion and realize that "they" are "we" and "we" are not powerless--even though it sometimes seems so.
Our government has to balance the wishes, desires, requirements, needs, of 300+ million people. It is inevitable that at any point in time some will be quite unhappy.
All depends on how it starts.
Our revolutionary war started with a bunch of farmers refusing to give up their guns.
In today's PC climate, they would be labeled uneducated gunnuts with strong racist leanings. Yeah I see everybody uniting behind that banner.
As far as the military walking out. I believe for every 1 that did you would have 10 that stayed. Either due to mis-information, or outright spite.
One should read up on the Milgram experiment about such things. Very depressing but a relatity. The majority of people follow orders, regardless of their personal feelings, they may regret it later, but at that time orders will be followed.
My main point about Ruby Ridge and Waco is more to do with how those events are protrayed in the Media. Particularly with Ruby Ridge. One would imagine they single handedly tore California from the continent by the way they are mentioned.
I am all for resisting tyranny. Do not get me wrong. I just can't believe there would be as many people willing to resist as there claims to be. I wish there were, but I just don't see it.
England should have been able to beat us....IF they hadn't been busy elsewhere.......Don't forget the political will as well being a reason....Remember Vietnam? We lost! We could have destroyed that country. England didn't have the political will to win & we had help from the French!
Just because you're in a fight with a bigger, stronger opponent doesn't guarantee the weaker party's loss. (I'm bigger & stronger than my wife, but I usually lose to her........)
If this type of fight were to break out, the losses would be huge.......Sadly though, I think the majority of gun owners would do just as the citizens in the UK, Canada & Australia. They would just turn in their firearms. So the actual number of ones that don't will be a small fraction & HEAVILY outnumbered........After all, we are a country filled with who want the 'nanny state' to take care of them....
Those that do resist.....well, they'll be labeled as cults, 'domestic terrorists', anti-government extremists, gun-nuts, etc.....
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.-Seneca
"If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. If I have a gun, what do I have to be paranoid about?" -Clint Smith
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper
A terrorist is someone who could not get their way through the established political process, so they turn to killing people and blowing up things.
Before you plan for revolution, go run for a seat on your city council.
I've seen a bunch of people I disagree with politicaly come to my door in the past month asking for signatures so they can enter the election...and you know what, I sign for them to be able to get onto the ballot.
I do it because they are engaging in an established part of the political process, and while I hope they fail misreably, suffer great losses at the polls, become dispondent alcoholics who never enter politics again, they are using the system we all live under to effect change...and I support involvement in the process.
I can vote.
I can sit on a jury.
I can file an action in court which will be heard before a judge with the authority to enter an order compelling a government officer to obey the law, and I can do so knowing that the government will have to abide by the decission of the judge if I win, and if I loose I can appeal.
I can run for political office.
I can start a movement for change, and if sufficiently popular I might even be able to convince enough legislators to call for a constitutional convention...
I am not worried about a revolution, except that it is started by people who are unwilling to do the long, hard work to change the system in the way written into its core documents.
Go plan your revolution.
I'm going to go hook up witha guy I know running for State Rep and see if I can help his campaign succeed.
Who knows, maybe in a year or so he will be sitting on a committee voting on a gun control bill, and he will call me and ask me what I think of it...
Good for you MitchellCT. I, however, think you are nuts for helping anyone from the opposition. Do you really think they would do the same for you? Do you really think our system is even close to being run by the people? Big business and the ultra rich run our government. Almost anyone who holds a seat in Washington for more than two terms has been so perverted by money and moral compromise that they probably don't even remember what it was like to be a "little fish". The only thing that can save our way of life short of armed revolt is term limits.
Now lets talk about our police and our court system. Well on second thought lets not. It would take way too long.
I'll close by saying that if you don't think our country is broke you need to get your eyes checked.
"For the Lord your God will bless you in all your harvest and in all the work of your hands." Deuteronomy 16:15
If you guys want to really look into what causes revolutions check out a book by Crane Brinton called "The Anatomy of a Revolution." It deals with every major revo of the last 300 years except for the Iranian and Chi-Com. The book can be a bit dry but it discusses every aspect of them and what links them all together. I could write a term paper on this prospect (and indeed, I considered it) but I will keep it rather short.
The American Revolution of late eighteenth century was unique in a LOT of ways. Mostly because the fanatics and fringe groups didn't win out in the end. As well, the ones who rebelled were the rich and only occasionally the middle class. What made it inevitable was quite a few factors. Primarily, the "colonies" had gotten too large - literally. Historically, colonial empires begin to lose their territory when the single occupied unit/country becomes larger than the empire's ruling land - thereby exceeding the capability to maintain rule. England didn't have so much of a problem with this in India due to the Caste system in place however and we all know how it all ended eventually. Anyhow... Using the American Revolution as a model for another revolution is rather.. well.. weak to say the least. Sure, Americans are unique on this planet, but they are NOT the same people they were 225+ years ago. And the situations are not even close to comparison. *IF* - and that is a HUGE 'if' - there was another one in this country then likely it would follow the model of almost every other major revolution and the end result would very likely be one that nobody here would want. Very probably, its result would be the mother of all 'unintended consequences.'
Think things are bad and your rights are eroded? What happens if the 'Federal' side loses and the government falls? Who takes power? The ones with the guns, right? Yeah.. and the ones who have the will to use them at all costs to keep power because there is one very important thing that everyone needs to realize when this topic comes up... and listen very closely: Moderates are executed post-revolution. They are eliminated and the ones with the will to do anything (good or bad) take power to erect their (not yours) government. French, Iranian, Bolshevik, Chi-Com, English, Modern Russian... take your pick. And if you think the Modern Russian Revolution of the early 1990's wasn't that bad then think again. Anyone else remember the tanks firing on parliament? The disintegration of the Soviet Union was bloody.
As for what causes typical revolutions and things to look for?
- Government in financial difficulties
- Intolerable gap between what people want and what they get
- Constraint - Feelings of being wronged (unjust gov't)
- Inefficiency of government
- Transfer of allegiance of 'intellectuals' away from government
- Class frictions and antagonisms
- Stepped-up class antagonisms
- Growing ineptitude of 'ruling class'
- Loss of military virtue
- Decadence - 'Ruling class' loses confidence in itself/loss of self-legitmacy
- 'Ruling class' economic situation becomes shaky
- Lamentation of conditions in popular media (poetry, newspapers, music, etc) - this is concurrent with the 'intellectuals allegiance' remark
- Destruction of the middle class - taxing to death, etc
- The inability to advance in money and the alienation of the rich from everyone else - aka 'glass ceiling'
- Involvement in a foreign occupation or war - This one isn't a major requirement but is something to look for
Context is important when looking at these as well. If you glance at this and are hunting for a revolution then you'll see it. Of course, it can apply to almost every major nation on the planet these days. What is so overwhelmingly important is to look at how important economic situations are when it comes to revolutions. Sure, rights are infringed with everyone... but revolutions aren't led and organized or even staffed by the masses and lower class. Revolutions are led by the middle class.
Anyhow, that's my brief summary. Do I think people would revolt over a 2nd Amendment violation? No. I think you'd see a LOT of people fighting back but it wouldn't be a major civil war. One thing that is absolutely key to a revolution is the loss of virtue by the military - meaning its soldiers would side more with the citizenry and either therefore leave and the ones on the other end would be more horrific.
The posts of Hopyard, MitchellCT and especially SixBravo articulate the point very well. And Bumper's post was short, sweet and absolutely on the mark.
So, if the agitated start a rebellion, and God forbid, destroy the United States, what do they suggest as a replacement government? Nothing. Quite literally nothing as if anarchy was a solution to the necessary restraints required in a civilized society.
Those who lament the lack of support for a revolution can't even find enough support to vote for candidates that support their views within the system. Term limits? We have term limits. They are called elections.