Is a 2nd American Revolution even possible?

[1000-points-of-fright]

I put this in the Bearing Arms section even though it has little to do with arms. We all know that a civilian populace can beat down an occupying force with small arms, capture their bigger weapons from them and use them against the occupiers. Pretty cut and dry when the enemy is essentially foreigners like the British were in 1776 and the targets are obvious.

But what happens when the enemy is your own government and your countrymen? What are valid targets? How could an armed rebellion even start without the populace turning against it and viewing it as domestic terrorism?

For the majority of the people to be behind a rebellion right off the bat, conditions would have to be so oppressive as to make the rebellion almost impossible to pull off.

[CoreyBowen999]

its impossible.

[ARealConservative]

I put this in the Bearing Arms section even though it has little to do with arms. We all know that a civilian populace can beat down an occupying force with small arms, capture their bigger weapons from them and use them against the occupiers. Pretty cut and dry when the enemy is essentially foreigners like the British were in 1776 and the targets are obvious.

But what happens when the enemy is your own government and your countrymen? What are valid targets? How could an armed rebellion even start without the populace turning against it and viewing it as domestic terrorism?

For the majority of the people to be behind a rebellion right off the bat, conditions would have to be so oppressive as to make the rebellion almost impossible to pull off.

as far as an armed revolution? yes.

I could see enough people opting out forcing wholesale changes in how we conduct ourselves.

[Uriel999]

My guess is possibly, and small arms have definitely done the job of keeping countries in chaos, see Kosovo. However, while things are not looking good for the country right now, the idea of armed revolution is just madness. This would not be an American Revolution, but a Civil War. The last time we had one of those it resulted in the bloodiest war America has seen. We still have plenty of time to work for a peaceful revolution. That all being said, buy up as much guns, ammo, and parts for maintenance. I think a lot of people overlook that concept. As tough as firearms can be, they are still machines and machines break.

[pcosmar]

There are too many variables to predict at this time.
It is theoretically possible, but would be costly, both bloody and to infrastructure.

Details, such as tactics and targets can not (due to forum rules) should not (opsec) be discussed here.
I would recommend reading some military manuals on this subject.
this is a good place to start.
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Special_Forces_counterinsurgency_manual_FM_31-20-3

Remember that due to the violent nature of a second revolution, it should only be considered as a last resort.

[Kludge]

Corporatism makes gov't power nearly limitless both militarily and with regards to resources =/


Current technology allows for an effective ability to monitor and root out resistance members within our society and most certainly would be abused by our authoritarian gov't (more so then now) if a violent "Revolution" were to take place.

[Truth Warrior]

Was the first one possible?

[Cowlesy]

Not going to happen.

Buy lots of soap.

[pcosmar]

Was the first one possible?

Yes, but difficult at the same time.
And even then, those that discussed such things were branded as criminals.


"We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin

[Peace&Freedom]

What could be possible, though it carries its own risks, is a successful movement to get a new constitutional convention seated. This CC would have to be expressly limited to considering just 2-3 amendments, and perhaps BAR ALL LAWYERS from contributing to poison pill anything. We could choose the top 2-3 things the Clinton-Bush years gave us that HAVE to be reversed. Examples could include restoring habeus corpus/due process, outlawing the Patriot/Military Commission Acts, and completely banning pre-emptive or preventive war as a standing policy of the US.

If more amendments or changes are agreed to be needed, a recommendation to hold another CC to specifically pass them could be issued by the convention at its close of business. This way there is no hijacking of the convention beyond the announced issues, and the states would have time to consider ratifying the amendments that were adopted before considering another set. This is peaceful, doable, and something the Paul movement could actually accomplish based on its current momentum.

[hypnagogue]

Is revolution possible? Absolutely. It will always be possible. A rerun of the American Revolution on the other hand, probably not. It was a different time under different circumstances.

Likelihood is another issue. As a state secures greater control, revolution becomes more difficult. However, as a state abuses power (inevitable), the forces for revolution grow. It's a delicate balance.

We should remember, all states fall. No exceptions. Longevity and influence on future states varies.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, but difficult at the same time.
And even then, those that discussed such things were branded as criminals.
By a "criminal government" ( aren't they all? ), just like now. :p

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

For the majority of the people to be behind a rebellion right off the bat, conditions would have to be so oppressive as to make the rebellion almost impossible to pull off.

Things would have to be thousands times worse than they are now. That's why I shake my head whenever I see an internet badass talking about taking on the best military in the world with their single ar15. Gov won't just beat ass, but they'll convince the general populace that it was justified regardless of the circumstances.

A succession might be possible long before a rebellion.

More likely, in the US, I think change would come through serious economic collapse. I'm not sure if any power vaccuum type of issues would happen. Looking to other countries doesn't help much, as the US seems rather unique in the amount of arms spread accross the populace.

[nobody's_hero]

I don't think it is impossible.

But I also do not think that it will start with civilians.

[Dieseler]

This is not the place to discuss such matters for sure.
The State Capitals in the presence of State Governance and Legislature are the places.
Revolution is impossible from the outside.
Civil War on the other hand is damn well likely if were not careful.
Secession in mass by the States over Federal oppression is the only way to slow this beast down and even begin to get its attention.
Look at what their so called Federal printing presses have done to us.
We no longer need their matching funds as they are worthless.
They need our taxes!
If 13 colonies beat the British Empire, then surely 50 States can bring an out of control Federal Government to the table to discuss its future ability to Govern them as a whole.
States! Stop this madness.
Tell them to bring you're Sons and Daughters home before more insanity befalls them.

Oops, better look at the stock ticker.
Ouch.

[newyearsrevolution08]

If we look like terrorists by defending the constitution then so be it, in the end however we can THEN get the record straight and let the public FINALLY know who WAS the real terrorists in this nation AND how they have been in charge for many years.

I think it makes MORE sense taking things back by political efforts BUT in the end if a Revolution is needed then we will be there and I think we will have MORE on our side then against to be honest. Its all fluff actually thinking Americans actually believe most of the bullshit polls and whatnot being posted everywhere.

I think the only thing that stops people for WANTING to get back to the basics and the constitution is their overall dependence on government aid. Get off the free ride and take care of your own.

[Mesogen]

Is an Iraqi insurgency possible? It would be ragtag bands of rebels with small arms and IEDs. Would it be able to stand up to the most powerful military in the world?

Well, it hasn't made that military leave Iraq yet, but the military cannot fully occupy the country. Iraq is really not under US control.

I don't know if this is an apt analogy, but millions of people with small arms can stand up to the US army (especially if most of the army will desert.)

[pcosmar]

That's why I shake my head whenever I see an internet badass talking about taking on the best military in the world with their single ar15.

Some truth there, but allow me to fill out that equation.
You may not be aware that a large portion of the population does not post on the internet. Many rural areas are filled with folks of an independent nature that don't hold their guns sideways. They hunt for food and sport and can often hit small targets at a distance.
I would also remind you that many a "Rambo" or "Bubba" has had military experience and training.
There are even some old coots out here that learned some stuff in the Jungles of Viet Nam and other odd places around the world.
If the people of this country stand up, they will be a force to be reckoned with.

[phixion]

I believe the military would need to turn on the government.

Pete

[newyearsrevolution08]

+1

also, who is to say that this so called "military" that we would be up against would even try and fight us anyways? These same soldiers are the ones who MANY will be on OUR SIDE. Sure they do what they are told NOW but given the chance I see MOST of the soldiers coming to our aid and defense of the constitution as they are supposed to do.

Some truth there, but allow me to fill out that equation.
You may not be aware that a large portion of the population does not post on the internet. Many rural areas are filled with folks of an independent nature that don't hold their guns sideways. They hunt for food and sport and can often hit small targets at a distance.
I would also remind you that many a "Rambo" or "Bubba" has had military experience and training.
There are even some old coots out here that learned some stuff in the Jungles of Viet Nam and other odd places around the world.
If the people of this country stand up, they will be a force to be reckoned with.

[nobody's_hero]

+2

My sentiments exactly. Just look at our sons and daughters serving! We've over-exhausted our troops by making them fight on extended tours in a conflict that had nothing to do with 9/11. Many of them signed up to go after bin Laden, and yet, now they're in Iraq being made to chase after what ever goal happens to be the flavor of the month.

Does anyone really think that they're going to come home and fire on their own countrymen? Not unless we get some hot-head to shoot at them first.


"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

I didn't serve, and won't under any candidates leading. But to those veterans on the forums who take this part of the oath very seriously, I want to say thank you.

And don't forget that Ron Paul received more donations from military service personnel than any other candidate.

[Truth Warrior]

How about a Gandhi style revolution, organized non-violent, non-cooperation? ;)

:)

[HOLLYWOOD]

Corporatism makes gov't power nearly limitless both militarily and with regards to resources =/


Current technology allows for an effective ability to monitor and root out resistance members within our society and most certainly would be abused by our authoritarian gov't (more so then now) if a violent "Revolution" were to take place.

Each Day, the World, led by the ELITIST, takes U.S. closer to SOYLENT GREEN :D

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Is an Iraqi insurgency possible? It would be ragtag bands of rebels with small arms and IEDs. Would it be able to stand up to the most powerful military in the world?

Well, it hasn't made that military leave Iraq yet, but the military cannot fully occupy the country. Iraq is really not under US control.

I don't know if this is an apt analogy, but millions of people with small arms can stand up to the US army (especially if most of the army will desert.)

I'd say it's a tough comparison in this case, since the Iraqi people aren't under the control of the US media.


Some truth there, but allow me to fill out that equation.
You may not be aware that a large portion of the population does not post on the internet. Many rural areas are filled with folks of an independent nature that don't hold their guns sideways. They hunt for food and sport and can often hit small targets at a distance.
I would also remind you that many a "Rambo" or "Bubba" has had military experience and training.
There are even some old coots out here that learned some stuff in the Jungles of Viet Nam and other odd places around the world.
If the people of this country stand up, they will be a force to be reckoned with.

I don't doubt one bit of that.


+1

also, who is to say that this so called "military" that we would be up against would even try and fight us anyways? These same soldiers are the ones who MANY will be on OUR SIDE. Sure they do what they are told NOW but given the chance I see MOST of the soldiers coming to our aid and defense of the constitution as they are supposed to do.

I used to feel that way. It used to only alarm me that police agencies were all becoming so militarized. I knew of situations where individuals were mistreated, but much fewer examples of where it seemed like populations were being mistreated. Tons of law enforcement people do things that seem clearly wrong, just because that's what they're told to do. Waco and Ruby Ridge seemed like isolated incidents. Now checkpoint type situations seem common with both local and federal agencies. After hearing Guantanamo, Katrina stories, and now Iowa, FDLS, etc, I'm not so sure anymore. It seems to have much to do with immediate mass influence of the population, and little to do with a sense of right and wrong. I certainly hope nobody ever has to find out.

Well, so that's where I was coming from. It's not that I think LEOs or military are just brainless order followers either, but they're also subject to many influences - order, media, family influenced by media, peers, etc. I think the propaganda machine would have to be sufficiently disabled for a revolution to be possible. At the same time, a dismantled propaganda machine probably means there's no need for a revolution.

[2orb]

I used to feel that way. It used to only alarm me that police agencies were all becoming so militarized. I knew of situations where individuals were mistreated, but much fewer examples of where it seemed like populations were being mistreated. Tons of law enforcement people do things that seem clearly wrong, just because that's what they're told to do. Waco and Ruby Ridge seemed like isolated incidents. Now checkpoint type situations seem common with both local and federal agencies. After hearing Guantanamo, Katrina stories, and now Iowa, FDLS, etc, I'm not so sure anymore. It seems to have much to do with immediate mass influence of the population, and little to do with a sense of right and wrong. I certainly hope nobody ever has to find out.

Well, so that's where I was coming from. It's not that I think LEOs or military are just brainless order followers either, but they're also subject to many influences - order, media, family influenced by media, peers, etc. I think the propaganda machine would have to be sufficiently disabled for a revolution to be possible. At the same time, a dismantled propaganda machine probably means there's no need for a revolution.

If I remember correctly, there were several LEO's during Katrina that left their posts. If it were me and I had to choose between my family and a job, I'd find my family and get out.

I realize we are talking about two different situations, but worrying about a job only goes so far and protection of loved ones (and way of life) would hopefully win out.

The scary thing is that around these parts it is rare to see even a middle-aged LEO. Most of them are buzz-cut young bucks seemingly looking for a confrontation and most likely without a family to protect/defend.

[slacker921]

Who controls the media? That is who controls the people, not guns, not the police, and not the military.

[Truth Warrior]

Who controls the media? That is who controls the people, not guns, not the police, and not the military.
Speak for yourself! :rolleyes: :D

[Truth Warrior]

Revolution of 1800

Some observers have regarded Jefferson's election in 1800 as revolutionary. This may be true in a restrained sense of the word, since the change from Federalist leadership to Republican was entirely legal and bloodless. Nevertheless, the changes were profound. The Federalists lost control of both the presidency and the Congress.

By 1800, the American people were ready for a change. Under Washington and Adams, the Federalists had established a strong government. They sometimes failed, however, to honor the principle that the American government must be responsive to the will of the people. They had followed policies that alienated large groups. For example, in 1798 they enacted a tax on houses, land and slaves, affecting every property owner in the country. Jefferson had steadily gathered behind him a great mass of small farmers, shopkeepers and other workers; they asserted themselves in the election of 1800. Jefferson enjoyed extraordinary favor because of his appeal to American idealism. In his inaugural address, the first such speech in the new capital of Washington, D.C., he promised "a wise and frugal government" to preserve order among the inhabitants, but would "leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry, and improvement." Jefferson's mere presence in The White House encouraged democratic behavior. White House guests were encouraged to shake hands with the president, rather than bowing as had been the Federalist practice. Guests at state dinners were seated at round tables, which emphasized a sense of equality. He taught his subordinates to regard themselves merely as trustees of the people. He encouraged agriculture and westward expansion. Believing America to be a haven for the oppressed, he urged a liberal naturalization law.

Federalists feared the worst. Some worried that Jefferson, the great admirer of the French, would set up a guillotine on Capitol Hill.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h470.html

[jkm1864]

When the economy crashes and the sheeple are starving anything is possible. I for one am trying to get ready for the eventual crash of the economy which will come. I will loose my house but after making payments for 5 years I say good riddance. I have no illusions about how bad it will get and people should use N.O. as an example. People will wander the streets with guns robbing anyone they come across. You will not be able to goto work and act like nothing is wrong because it will be all around You. When the population gets tired of government supported thugs stealing their food and weapons there will be change.

[Dieseler]

Lights Out.
I just finished it. Nows a good time to read it I think.

http://www.giltweasel.com/stuff/LightsOut-Current.pdf

Reviews of Lights Out by Halffast

http://www.peakoil.com/gate.html?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&printertopic=1&t=26655&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&vote=viewresult&popup=1

[Kalifornia]

Hypothetically speaking, yes it is possible, but it wouldnt look like anything remotely resembling the first one. A rebellion in the U.S. would look more like a vastly decentralized and compartmentalized IRA than the Continental Army. I'm just guessing, but I think that an American "IRA" would probably use long rifles in preference to bombs as part of a targeted assassination campaign. Way less collateral damage.

The funny thing is, the weaponry necessary for that kind of campaign was in existence in the 1800-early 1900s. Sharps, Enfields, Moisins.. all of them can be used in this capacity with some tweaking, and there are literally millions of them just lying around.

Anyway, if it were to happen, IMHO, the impact would be huge, but in the end, they would lose, the participants executed, and it would make things worse for everyone. The sheep would get skeered and the government would just crack down harder, and just start confiscating every weapon it can get its hands on.

The way out of this problem is words, not bullets. The minute someone (besides .gov) starts shedding blood, we are pretty much screwed forever.

[TruckinMike]

The way out of this problem is words, not bullets.

YES, that would be better.


The minute someone (besides .gov) starts shedding blood, we are pretty much screwed forever

BUT, you could be very wrong with this statement. Not everyone is a pacifist, especially when it comes to the Constitution and Country. If the fighting begins, the citizens will finish it. Thus, the Corrupt and treasonous Government servants (and their facilitators) will be destroyed. If not destroyed then, tried, convicted, and executed.

PS - and do you have any idea how many people have prepared and are preparing for a potential war with our own government? I would guess at least 500,000 in varying degrees.

Not to mention that Some folks are firm believers in Jefferson's words...

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure." .

TMike

[Truth Warrior]

YES, that would be better.



BUT, you could be very wrong with this statement. Not everyone is a pacifist, especially when it comes to the Constitution and Country. If the fighting begins, the citizens will finish it. Thus, the Corrupt and treasonous Government servants (and their facilitators) will be destroyed. If not destroyed then, tried, convicted, and executed.

PS - and do you have any idea how many people have prepared and are preparing for a potential war with our own government? I would guess at least 500,000 in varying degrees.

Not to mention that Some folks are firm believers in Jefferson's words...
.

TMike
Your Jefferson quote.

QFT! ;)

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

YES, that would be better.



BUT, you could be very wrong with this statement. Not everyone is a pacifist, especially when it comes to the Constitution and Country. If the fighting begins, the citizens will finish it. Thus, the Corrupt and treasonous Government servants (and their facilitators) will be destroyed. If not destroyed then, tried, convicted, and executed.

PS - and do you have any idea how many people have prepared and are preparing for a potential war with our own government? I would guess at least 500,000 in varying degrees.

I'm guessing half of those are really FBI agents.

[LibertyEagle]

I'm guessing half of those are really FBI agents.

After the OKC bombing, it's my belief that most all of the militia groups were infiltrated. :(

[Dr.3D]

And we must remember, it would not necessarily be our troops we would have to contend with if such an event were to take place. It is my understanding, the government would import troops from other countries to do it's bidding.

[Ozwest]

Twelve to eighteen months down the track.

People are going to be pissed off.

Reload.

[Athan]

I put this in the Bearing Arms section even though it has little to do with arms. We all know that a civilian populace can beat down an occupying force with small arms, capture their bigger weapons from them and use them against the occupiers. Pretty cut and dry when the enemy is essentially foreigners like the British were in 1776 and the targets are obvious.

But what happens when the enemy is your own government and your countrymen? What are valid targets? How could an armed rebellion even start without the populace turning against it and viewing it as domestic terrorism?

For the majority of the people to be behind a rebellion right off the bat, conditions would have to be so oppressive as to make the rebellion almost impossible to pull off.

Armed revolution would be a disastrous failure. Factors that allowed the miracle of 1776 to happen included a logistical nightmare for the British as well as highly intelligent leadership, an actually intelligent populace that were armed and demanded to rule themselves, as well as chance.

It is possible to have a revolution in these times however because most of the leg work IS done. We would need to have our people involved in all levels of government, education, and take back mainstream media control, and finally not vote for anybody not republican or democrat. Once we succeed in that, the movement would have to summarily punish those responsible for causing so much socialism and etc.

[shaunish]

I am predicting that ---

The US gets heavily involved in a war with Iran (which will be a proxy war with china / russia).

The US will then instate the draft, and 6-12months following there will be a civil war - country area vs. urban areas.

After 9-18 months of civil war, Russia will bomb urban areas, allowing the country areas to be victorious.

During this time our NATO allies will be too busy at home, and in the middle east to provide much assistance in the US civil war.



This is just a prediction based on some world war 3 dream i had the other night.

[RedLightning]

If one were to try an armed Revolution in America, it would probibly be best to use the novel Unintended Consequences as a starting point...

[Kalifornia]

I am predicting that ---

The US gets heavily involved in a war with Iran (which will be a proxy war with china / russia).

The US will then instate the draft, and 6-12months following there will be a civil war - country area vs. urban areas.

After 9-18 months of civil war, Russia will bomb urban areas, allowing the country areas to be victorious.

During this time our NATO allies will be too busy at home, and in the middle east to provide much assistance in the US civil war.



This is just a prediction based on some world war 3 dream i had the other night.

Did John Titor visit you in your dreams?

[Luft97]

I say no. Of course it COULD be possible but will it happen or be successful? No.

Technology in the end would be the enemy. You have to look at what they have that the public does not. The longer people stand by to wait for that straw that breaks the camel's back the more dismal the outlook becomes. Just wait until we have NATO troops in our cities to "stand guard".