Armed insurrection in America

Frequently during Volconvo debates self-styled freedom-loving Libertarians have claimed that if their liberty was unduly curtailed by "socialists" they'd take up arms and overthrow the government. Indeed, the claim is that the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms implicitly allows American citizens to overthrow their government.

I'd be interested in understanding under what scenario would the revolution begin. I'd like to know what military methods the freedom-loving Libertarians would actually use to overthrow the government. And, I'd be even more interested in knowing what kind of government they'd establish and how they would impose it and enforce it. Lastly, having won their revolution and imposed their new government, I'd like to know how they plan to treat people who don't agree with them, particularly the socialists who might in turn launch a counter-revolution because surely the freedom-loving Libertarians wouldn't deprive the socialists of weapons.

Regards
S.

[Praxius]

Um.... well they gotta first fight through all the current government's propaganda about them not being truly patriotic, that they would be home grown terrorists, and anything else they tend to use in their favor.....

It's still early in the life of this topic. However, I would have thought given the number of times I've been told by freedom-loving Libertarians how they'd take out their guns and fight for their rights that they would have some idea how that military option would unfold, and what they would do if they won.

Perhaps they've never really given much thought to the implications of their boasts. I hope that's not the case.

At any rate, as of this post about 35 people have stopped by to see if there's been any response.

I remain hopeful.

Regards
S.

[Osborn F Enready]

Nobody is foolish enough to spell it out for a foreign national who is an enemy ideologically to the U.S.

I know you probably watch "The Dukes of Hazzard", but all of the U.S. isn't like that......but then again, feel free to believe that if you wish.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Nobody is foolish enough to spell it out for a foreign national who is an enemy ideologically to the U.S. I know you probably watch "The Dukes of Hazzard", but all of the U.S. isn't like that......but then again, feel free to believe that if you wish.

So you can't even tell us how you'd deal with the enemy combatants--Americans all--after you'd won.

Regards
S.

[ericsp23]

I can understand why someone who advocated violent overthrow of the government wouldn't want to go into too much detail about how they would go about doing it, but I do think the original poster brought up a good point.
How would you deal with those who disagree with your politics?
I don't see any way that you could deal with them without violating your own principles.

[Osborn F Enready]

How would holding a person prisoner until they can be seated for court a violation of principles?

[ericsp23]

So you would imprison people for their beliefs?

[Osborn F Enready]

If I were in charge of the revolution, I would imprison people for their ACTIONS against the Constitution, not their beleifs.

[Praxius]

I can understand why someone who advocated violent overthrow of the government wouldn't want to go into too much detail about how they would go about doing it, but I do think the original poster brought up a good point. How would you deal with those who disagree with your politics? I don't see any way that you could deal with them without violating your own principles.

Sure you can, in a very sucessful democratic manner..... and here is one possible manner:

(So long as the government doesn't muck around with assasinations and other stupid things.)

Hold a national referendum (If that's possible in the US, I'm not sure) on the quality you feel you are getting from your government. Get details surveys about the democrats and the republicans..... make sure you get every detail, every possible excuse you want, and build a national defence that the country is fed up with the government and want serious change, and a new system of government.

Make a national poll.... and if you like, try and make an online, independant, securely sponsored poll for all to log on and voice their concerns, then hold a vote.

If the government will not sanction this, that would be the first show of not doing what the country wants, and you could start a revolution there. But if you want more assurance, make the vote and poll independant like the survey.... make sure that it is covered by a couple of lawyers and make sure everything is ligit and sanctioned so that nothing can be questioned.... and then run it.

If a majority want change, then you should by your democratic rights remove the government anytime you wish...... it is by the people for the people, isn't it?

If they fight it and refuse to accept the vote, and possibly say something like it didn't go through the appropreate proceedures that laws and other votes have to do, like goto Congress or whatever.......

.... Then your defense by your lawyers would be that the system is what is in question and therefore can not be trusted. They either accept the ruling of the national people of the USA, or prepare for a military revolution.

By this time, I hardly believe your soldiers would even fathom to take up arms against your own people.

Simple, straight forward, and effective.

Enjoy....

[christibe]

Praxius I wish that were possible here. Unfortunately though, the people no longer choose our government (see the 2000 election where the courts decided on the president, the majority of whom were themselves appointed by Republican Presidents). (I read some of your old post on direct-democracy btw, very much enjoyed) We do not have a way of affecting much through a national referendum. I've thought long on how this would/could work, and realized that it really couldn't. Additionally, the people gave the bigwigs a pretty strong message last November, if one believes what they tell us, when we put the President's opposition party in the majority of not only the Congress but also the states. But, since there is no real difference between the '2-parties,' nothing at all has changed. The biggest reflection on American social memory is that not only are the 'two parties' the 'only choice', but also that they actually feel that it has always been that way. Most people also do not realize what these "two" parties were principally founded upon, and further still that our founding fathers warned the country to not get stuck on this train, as it were, only the wreck ends in totalitarianism. So, my words are a bit vague and not making much sense, but it's late and this is the only free time I get as I worked from 8am-915pm.

In addition to the relinquishing of our national principles as stated in the Constitution, there is also a military industrial complex that while it sits in domestic peace, if we did revolt, there would be no way for us to win, as it were. I am unsure that the originator here knows the nature of American 'Libertarians.' Mostly, they want a very small to as close to nonexistent federal government as possible, with a slightly more powerful provincial government. There is no reason to have a federal govt., except to keep the states together as a nation, and some various administrative roles therein. It is perhaps the closest to original intent, if you will, behind the formation of the United States as an entity. It is natural and expected that the Libertarian would feel that their very life be threatened by the government if it were to directly take any action against them, which follows that they would and should take up arms. We were, in fact, told to do so by the fathers in the case that we allow the government to become fascist. To not fight to retain our rights is the same as asking for it to happen. It is our duty as Americans to vigilantly defend the Constitution and to police the government, as it is the thing to not be trusted in a democracy. We were founded on revolution, after all.

So, though I consider myself a person who personally believes that the government should be responsible for providing the essentials of life, via health-care, education and so on, I have my heart set on Ron Paul (Libertarian) in 2008. He would at least get us back into some kind of semblance of a balance in power, and of course, intelligently get us out of Iraq as soon as possible. Then, with the masses outside the box of the fake two-party system, they could see how bogus it really is. And then, America could be a place I would be proud of being a citizen of again.

Unfortunately, though, the construct we put ourselves in through our complacency gives us no alternative to what we have. At least, that is what I have come up with after 7 years of thinking, listening and seeing this debacle... Please, please someone prove me wrong. :)

[tinybear]

The 2nd Amendment was passed at a time when it was still possible for the civilian population to stage an uprising and topple the government. It is now no longer possible. The 2nd Amendment is now, therefore, outdated and its only use seems to be a (rather dubious) justification to resist gun/arms control.

For a laugh, you might wanna take a look at this video.

YouTube - Archie Bunker vs. Gun Control

[ericsp23]

Quote by: Osborn If I were in charge of the revolution, I would imprison people for their ACTIONS against the Constitution, not their beleifs.

That doesn't really answer my question though. As a revolutionary leader you would be in a position to define what is against your Constitution, which could be just about anything.
Would you tolerate organized dissent, or would you use force to impose your belief on those who disagree with you?

[ZNFYRH]

It strikes me as some kind of egomaniacal paranoia to think that Volconvo is being "monitored" or that someone here will rat people out to the government.

I think the questions in the OP are excellent and failing to answer them based on the above-mentioned paranoia is nothing but cowardly evasion.

I'm inclined to believe that that kind of person is willing to talk a big game but really doesn't care about what they are saying or backing it up in any way.

[Praxius]

I talk a big mouthed game.... and if it was my country, I'd probably be leading some organizations by now..... but I'm just a bystander in Canada.

But the thing is, here in Canada, there is far less control over society by the government then there is in the US..... if we want change, we make it noticed and apparent..... we have no problems for protests or even forcing an election when we feel we need one and to pull whoever is in power, out...... If the leading political party won't listen, all of the opposition will..... They'd love to get into power and get a better pay.... so the best thing to do is do what the population wants.

But when it comes to the US, it seems you guys have so many restrictions on what you can and can not do against to government without being labeled a terrorist or un-patriotic or even Treason..... and it's easy to get the bible-belt population to back the government..... all they gotta do is call you satanists or something.....

I'll say whatever I want to say, as will most Canadians you will meet.... we're used to having that freedom to critisize our government.... we at least feel we have some control over the government, because they stay in as long as we want them in..... not when they want to leave, or after a designated 4 year term..... if our Prime Minister royally foks up in the first month, we'll call for another election and get them out..... they have no security in their jobs, which is why they best do what the majority wants.

^ Now that might not be 100% accurate, but in a nut shell that's how it works. And the variety of political parties we have to choose from is much greater then that in the US..... the main ones are the Liberals, the Conservatives (Liberals are kind like your Democrats and the Conservatives are like Republicans) The NDP, Green Party, Bloc Quebecois or whatever....

and there's all kinds of other little parties mostly nobody bother's to vote for such as:

The Marijuana Party
The Communist Party
.... in fact here:

Elections Canada On-Line | Political Parties, Candidates and Others

There they are are.... check them out and see the odd diversity each one holds to. One interesting one that caught my eye is this one:

Information concerning the Communist Party of Canada. Since its founding in May 1921, Canada's party of Socialism, the Communist Party of Canada (CPC) has been in the forefront of left wing Canadian politics, fighting for jobs, democratic rights, Canadian independence, peace, socialism and working class internationalism. The CPC is a voluntary organization of like-minded Canadians based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism whose ultimate goal is the creation of a Canadian socialist society. We strive to promote the broadest possible unity of the working class and its allies against all forms of oppression and to bring all these forces into the daily struggles of working women and men for jobs, social justice and democratic advance. The Communist Party of Canada analyzes the political processes at work in Canada and abroad from the perspective of a scientific socialist world view, Marxism-Leninism. We propose a "People's Alternative" to the right wing agenda in Canada Curb the transnational corporations -- scrap NAFTA and defend Canadian sovereignty. Make job creation, especially the shorter work week with no loss in pay, the top priority Shift the tax burden onto the wealthy corporations Defend and improve universal social programs Defend the environment against corporate devastation Guarantee the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively Expand democratic political rights; promote equality for women and people of colour Democratic constitutional reform, based on recognition of the full equality of Quebec with the rest of Canada, and guarantees of full aboriginal rights Cut military spending by 50%; convert military to civilian job Safeguard the rights of people with disabilities Act against racism, sexism and homophobia

Well now, that sounds different then what I understand Communism as....lol.... I found this funny though:

fighting for jobs, democratic rights......

Communism fighting for Democracy? That's different.

Can anybody here see a Communist Canada?

[ZNFYRH]

Canada... good place.

[Osborn F Enready]

ericsp said: That doesn't really answer my question though. As a revolutionary leader you would be in a position to define what is against your Constitution, which could be just about anything.

The Constitution is written, as is the Bill of Rights. The amendmendts are what are in question (to some) and it is the issue of "context" and "definition" being argued as the method of subversion of the texts.
If I were that leader, and it was my cause, it would be about implementing the limits in the Bill of Rights, on the government. The leaders of the government, have failed to recognize, or respect those checks on the ability of the government to abridge the rights of individuals. The "imprisonable" crime would be the crime of "ignoring, misconstruing, or maliciously circumventing" the original intent and context of the role of the individual in relation to the ability of the government to regulate in relation to those rights, while serving to protect same said rights, under oath.

ericsp said: Would you tolerate organized dissent, or would you use force to impose your belief on those who disagree with you?

Of course I would tolerate organized descent, to the point of force, and/or self defense. I have no problem with this union dividing over "irreconcileable differences", and I don't see the sanctity of the union taking precedent over the rights of individuals. Lincoln, FDR, saw it another way.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: It strikes me as some kind of egomaniacal paranoia to think that Volconvo is being "monitored" or that someone here will rat people out to the government.

Obviously you are ill informed, or naieve.

ZNYFRH said: I think the questions in the OP are excellent and failing to answer them based on the above-mentioned paranoia is nothing but cowardly evasion.

Good for you, take a stab if you wish. I have stated my reasons for not answering with any sincerity.

ZNYFRH said: I'm inclined to believe that that kind of person is willing to talk a big game but really doesn't care about what they are saying or backing it up in any way.

That style of debate should be welcome to you, since it seems to be your usual tactic.

[ZNFYRH]

Must have struck a chord if you think I was referring to you personally.

Unlike some, I don't talk about armed revolt in the country and then hide behind a computer screen. So I don't really know what this "usual tactic" is that you're talking about.

[Osborn F Enready]

I talk about armed revolt all the time, because we are due for another.

I don't hide behind a screen, because I don't hide.

I am simply not going to spell out successful ways for our system to be overthrown for a socialist, in canada. (sdbest)