Poll: 44% of Republicans Believe Armed Revolution May Be Necessary

[green73]

Armed Revolution May Soon Be Necessary...
Wow, more and more are beginning to think so.

According to a recent Fairleigh-Dickinson poll (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2013/guncontrol/), nearly half of all Republicans believe that we might need an armed revolution in the near future to protect our liberties and a fifth of Democrats think the same thing.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lIzEm_tOaYs/UYGTQkc8cII/AAAAAAAALhk/R8pO-Q4NaHU/s1600/blog_armed_revolution_poll.jpg

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/05/armed-revolution-may-soon-be-necessary.html

[Lucille]

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing a people to slavery.”
-Thomas Jefferson

[TheTexan]

http://thewackyheads.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/smile.gif

[phx420]

yet they still don't get palestinians

[sailingaway]

"may" covers an awful lot of speculative territory.

[Origanalist]

The Redcoats have nukes, we don't.

[green73]

"may" covers an awful lot of speculative territory.

Tis the month of boundless hope.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

A.) This is really bad news.

But so is everything else.


B.) Those in the affirmative will be under-reported.

To start with, they polled "registered voters." Furthermore, that's a large number of people to even answer that question affirmatively to someone unidentified on the phone. My first thought would be "Why is DHS calling me?"

[Sola_Fide]

As good as this sounds, it shows that people still largely believe that change comes by force rather than voluntary, peaceful interactions.

[NIU Students for Liberty]

And if there was a Republican in the White House, that number would be dramatically lower.

[Christian Liberty]

As good as this sounds, it shows that people still largely believe that change comes by force rather than voluntary, peaceful interactions.

Ugh... I admit this tempts me as well. Strictly speaking, its not REVOLUTION we should be going for, but SECESSION. We should separate ourselves from the statists and start our own country. Granted, we can't, but the minute we actually FORCE anyone to join us, we've already lost, which Revolution does sort of imply.

That said, ANYTHING that will bring down the empire, even by accident (Since I bet half these right wingers support it) is a start, isn't it?

How can you have voluntary, peaceful interactinos when the state won't let you?

[Origanalist]

And if there was a Republican in the White House, that number would be dramatically lower.

Aint that the disgusting truth.

[WhistlinDave]

"may" covers an awful lot of speculative territory.

I agree. Also, the question doesn't specify whether this armed revolution erupts on its own, or whether there's a massive act of government aggression against the citizenry first that precipitates it (like martial law being instituted, for example). A lot of people might give different answers for those two scenarios.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, to be fair, if that Republican was named "Ron Paul" I'd answer "No" as well:)

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Ugh... I admit this tempts me as well. Strictly speaking, its not REVOLUTION we should be going for, but SECESSION. We should separate ourselves from the statists and start our own country. Granted, we can't, but the minute we actually FORCE anyone to join us, we've already lost, which Revolution does sort of imply.


That is why I called it bad news. Thank you for elaborating. But I guess I also think there will be no possibility of peaceful secession. That = bad news too.

[Christian Liberty]

Revolution, with enough support, is better than nothing. Throw the current oligarchs out, and then we can worry about partioning land. That said, if there's enough support to overthrow the oligarchs by violence, there's probably enough to vote them out as well... unless they literally won't let us.

That's probably the breaking point...

[osan]

"may" covers an awful lot of speculative territory.

Soup for you - this was the very first thing I thought when I saw the OP. Such questions are pure fog - they ask virtually nothing concrete and leave the "interpreting" up to the individual responder These polls are worth less than nothing because one cannot say with any reasonable confidence whether they are reflecting some objectively defined speculative reality. The question at hand is about as reliably informative as one that asks, "is today a nice day?"

[osan]

As good as this sounds, it shows that people still largely believe that change comes by force rather than voluntary, peaceful interactions.

Do I really need to point out the ways and degrees in which this statement fails so very catastrophically in the context in which it was made?

No soup for your. (NSFY)

[TheTexan]

As good as this sounds, it shows that people still largely believe that change comes by force rather than voluntary, peaceful interactions.

Violence in defense of self, family, and property is justified and often necessary. Revolutions can certainly meet that criteria.

[TheTexan]

Ugh... I admit this tempts me as well. Strictly speaking, its not REVOLUTION we should be going for, but SECESSION. We should separate ourselves from the statists and start our own country. Granted, we can't, but the minute we actually FORCE anyone to join us, we've already lost, which Revolution does sort of imply.

Very true.


That said, ANYTHING that will bring down the empire, even by accident (Since I bet half these right wingers support it) is a start, isn't it?

Also true.

[Lucille]

I don't want a revolution. That would be fucking horrible.

Martin Armstrong says one's coming in 2067(?) I'm glad I'll be dead.

[RickyJ]

The Redcoats have nukes, we don't.

Nukes won't work in such close confines. They would kill themselves just to destroy some of the opposition. Israel can't nuke the Palestinians without dooming themselves, and they can't use them against any other nation without guaranteeing they are wiped off the face of the Earth.

[RickyJ]

I don't want a revolution. That would be fucking horrible.

Martin Armstrong says one's coming in 2067(?) I'm glad I'll be dead.

The HSD didn't buy all the ammo because they feel safe, they fully expect they are going to need it.

[klamath]

Yeaw ask them some question about the glory of a revolution as they have been taught to view the redcoats versus patriots and sure they will say yes. Then ask them how they feel about a revolution as they imagine staring down on the spilled entrals of their sons and daughters? I suspect the numbers might not be so high then. Many many people jump into something they have no clue about only to pray to God, atheist or not, that they could take that position and action back....

[fr33]

It's the Obama-factor. There's a scary negro in the White House doing all the same things Bush did. They'll get over it.

[green73]

Ending Tyranny Without Violence
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html

[PSYOP]

Armed revolution will fail -- as Originalist said, the red coats have nukes and much more. Our only chance to win this war is through the spread of ideas.

[Tod]

The Redcoats have nukes, we don't.

Hence the adage, "...keep your enemies closer."

[Athan]

The Redcoats have nukes, we don't.

Cowardace is just as deadly. You die every day instead of one time in a blaze of glory.

[RM918]

Armed revolution will fail -- as Originalist said, the red coats have nukes and much more. Our only chance to win this war is through the spread of ideas.

This idea was the one the neocons had when they decided to go nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it didn't turn out very well. The US military, when used outside its intended purpose (subjugating a colony instead of defending the country), is not nearly as invincible as people think.

If they can't beat cavemen with rocks in a middle-eastern backwater, what makes anyone think they'll do better on the homefront? Vastly more territory to subjugate, vastly more guns. Even if they could eventually put it down, they'd go bankrupt first.

Either way it's an undesirable result, leaving a lot of dead people who ultimately had nothing to do with things (anyone responsible for actually pushing it will have long fled the country), so I sincerely hope it never happens. But if it did? It is not nearly the curb-stomp one-way fight people are making it out to be, all you have to do is look at what's been 'accomplished' in the Middle East.

[V3n]

I don't think it's the brightest thing to fill out that poll and give the gov't so much warning that it could happen. On the one hand, maybe they'll see the poll rise and start to change their tune - on the other hand, maybe the polls rise and they lay down some serious gun control and surveillance.

"One free man defending his home is more powerful than ten hired soldiers." -Robin Hood

[TheTexan]

Our only chance to win this war is through the spread of ideas.

Defensive violence plays a very important role in securing and maintaining freedom. Ideas will only get you so far.

[tod evans]

"One free man defending his home" gets him a 924c charge thanks to the Brady bill...

Try again...

[AuH20]

This poll sounds pretty accurate based off my findings on the ground. Society is gradually dismantling due to this economic upheaval. Americans suddenly didn't get imbued with courage overnight, but rather their options are quickly running out.

[klamath]

It starts an endless cycle of REAL violence not the puny stuff people in this country think they have now. There is no "they" to fight, there is "us" that would be fighting and killing each other (as in the American people).
Once again I ask the gun waving patriots around here, why aren't you practicing freedom now? Oh fear, you say that you will get violently opposed.
Well you haven't seen real "fear". Wait until the thousands of roving bands of thugs break down your door while you are off fighting "The government" and rape, torture and kill your wife and kids. Yeaw you can be so proud you were not a coward.:rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

100 years overdue.

but doubts that it will be anything but localized resistance.

[Czolgosz]

Secede. Defend. And remind the very small amount of people who pull the tyranny strings that tyranny is a dangerous business.

Words have been spoken way before the USA was ever conceived. Hell, the USA is a compromise w/ the big government assholes who existed at the time...and it required blood just to get that.

Quite simply, it's a fools bet to believe you can talk your way to freedom w/o backing it up.

[torchbearer]

Revolution, with enough support, is better than nothing. Throw the current oligarchs out, and then we can worry about partioning land. That said, if there's enough support to overthrow the oligarchs by violence, there's probably enough to vote them out as well... unless they literally won't let us.

That's probably the breaking point...
they literally won't let us. see lagop convention for more details.

[Czolgosz]

By the by, defending freedom with blood is a *permanent* gig.

[torchbearer]

By the by, defending freedom with blood is a *permanent* gig. eternal.

[klamath]

Secession? Just make sure every acre of land and every last soul on this land wants your secession otherwise you are no better than any other tyrant forcing violence onto the land and person of someone that doesn't want it. They in turn would have the right to turn their guns on you.

[Zippyjuan]

I noticed that the numbers who think there might be armed revolution go down as education goes up.

[Deborah K]

Ron and everyone else with any credibility has predicted an economic collapse. What do you think will happen then? Social collapse. Martial law. Revolution. My advice is to prepare; fly under the radar; and set up a 'free zone' in your area so you can still function and hopefully not get caught up in it. You'll be able to pick up the pieces and re-establish if you prepare now.

[oyarde]

I noticed that the numbers who think there might be armed revolution go down as education goes up. I think it is possible :) the numbers follow percentage of firearms owners , lol

[erowe1]

"may" covers an awful lot of speculative territory.

I agree. I might answer that question, "yes," but only because it says, "may."

I wonder how many of those 44% of Republicans would support their state seceding. I'm guessing not many.

[erowe1]

Secession? Just make sure every acre of land and every last soul on this land wants your secession otherwise you are no better than any other tyrant forcing violence onto the land and person of someone that doesn't want it. They in turn would have the right to turn their guns on you.

That's not true.

Declaring your independence from someone else ruling over you is not the same thing as you ruling over someone else.

[Southron]

I noticed that the numbers who think there might be armed revolution go down as education goes up.

Define "education".

[Zippyjuan]

Define "education".

According to the poll- years of schooling. According to it, among those with only a high school education 36% agree. for those with a college education, only 22% think it will happen.

[pcosmar]

Define "education".


According to the poll- years of schooling. According to it, among those with only a high school education 36% agree. for those with a college education, only 22% think it will happen.

Does not answer the question. or more accurately,, does not define "Education".

in actuality,, years in indoctrination have very little to do with either education or intelligence.

[Zippyjuan]

I think it is possible :) the numbers follow percentage of firearms owners , lol

More educated= fewer guns? Possible.

[tod evans]

I wonder how many of those 44% of Republicans would support their state seceding. I'm guessing not many.

At least 1/2 would make their gubment check a contingency...

[pcosmar]

More educated= fewer guns? Possible.

Not likely..

More indoctrinated,, lower intelligence,, increased conformity to propaganda,, might lead to less guns.

[Demigod]

Revolution, with enough support, is better than nothing. Throw the current oligarchs out, and then we can worry about partioning land. That said, if there's enough support to overthrow the oligarchs by violence, there's probably enough to vote them out as well... unless they literally won't let us.

That's probably the breaking point...

10-20% of the population revolting would completely overwhelm any government,especially if the ones doing the revolting are of the majority religion/nationality/race.With 10-20% you could not even get local government positions.

If you want to see the results see Syria,Libya and ex-Yugoslavia.All that will be left to make the changes upon will be ashes and dead bodies.

[Zippyjuan]

So you need 30- 60 million white European Christians (Protestants being the largest Christian group)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

(why would race and religion and nationality matter- hoping to copy Germany in WWII?)

[klamath]

That's not true.

Declaring your independence from someone else ruling over you is not the same thing as you ruling over someone else.
Which shows you haven't got a grasp wht happens on a combat battle field. The violence does NOT stay in the confines of what you wish. The combatants will be bringing violence to noncombatants land.

[erowe1]

Which shows you haven't got a grasp wht happens on a combat battle field. The violence does NOT stay in the confines of what you wish. The combatants will be bringing violence to noncombatants land.

None of that would make me a tyrant.

[klamath]

None of that would make me a tyrant.A tyrant kills people to achieve his aims as does the "freedom fighter". When innocents die in your battle you have taken the lives of others to achieve your aims making you a tyrant.

[erowe1]

A tyrant kills people to achieve his aims as does the "freedom fighter". When innocents die in your battle you have taken the lives of others to achieve your aims making you a tyrant.

But there's a difference between killing someone because they won't let you violate their rights, and killing someone because you won't let them violate your rights. The former is tyranny, the latter is the opposite.

I'm not sure what kind of people you have in mind by "innocents."

[pcosmar]

Which shows you haven't got a grasp wht happens on a combat battle field. The violence does NOT stay in the confines of what you wish. The combatants will be bringing violence to noncombatants land.

http://binaryapi.ap.org/58b8c590e45041c6990886c62cb246f0/460x.jpg

http://thearrowsoftruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Boston-Police-State.jpg

Too Late.

[Demigod]

So you need 30- 60 million white European Christians (Protestants being the largest Christian group)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

(why would race and religion and nationality matter- hoping to copy Germany in WWII?)

Because if the government can paint a revolution as a racial/religious/regional conflict rather than a conflict against the government it self then it will secure the majority support rather easily and then you can expect a protracted bloodbath.But in the US all minorities are dependent on welfare to a large extent so it is not a viable scenario.

Just to put in an example what I wanted to say.If the blacks in Detroit and Chicago rose up against DC or the Latinos in Texas/Arizona to secede from the US ( although this is highly unlikely do to the fact they mostly live off welfare ) the government would be able to get the public opinion of white European-American evangelists ( who hold most of the power in the country ) on their side very quickly.If white European-American evangelists from North/South Dakota,Iowa,Minnesota,Washington would rise up against DC the government would have a rather hard job convincing white European-American evangelists to kill them and with it getting a better chance of survival

[klamath]

But there's a difference between killing someone because they won't let you violate their rights, and killing someone because you won't let them violate your rights. The former is tyranny, the latter is the opposite.

I'm not sure what kind of people you have in mind by "innocents."
People that don't want any part of your violent revolution.

[Zippyjuan]

All minorities are dependent on welfare? Seriously?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/


Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %

Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %

Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %

Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %

Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %

[klamath]

http://binaryapi.ap.org/58b8c590e45041c6990886c62cb246f0/460x.jpg

http://thearrowsoftruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Boston-Police-State.jpg

Too Late.
When those civilians are laying in pools of their own blood multiplied by hundreds of thousands and millions then we are talking violence of a revolution.

[erowe1]

People that don't want any part of your violent revolution.

OK?

If you broke into my house with a gun and I defended myself with a gun and some neighbor got shot in the process, do you really think my culpability for having defended myself will be the same as yours for having attacked me in the first place?

[tod evans]

All minorities are dependent on welfare? Seriously?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Ya' have to throw in SSI and government pensions in order to get a true picture of who would side with whom...

[pcosmar]

When those civilians are laying in pools of their own blood multiplied by hundreds of thousands and millions then we are talking violence of a revolution.

That is already happening,, though less here than elsewhere. I expect the same here eventually.
It has happened before,, and resulted in Spin Doctors,, Public Relations Firms and the MSM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattimer_massacre

[klamath]

OK?

If you broke into my house with a gun and I defended myself with a gun and some neighbor got shot in the process, do you really think my culpability for having defended myself will be the same as yours for having attacked me in the first place?
The neighbor would be dead no matter what the intentions were. It is not a valid comparison. When you defend your house you don't know your neighbor going to be killed. When you go into a revolution YOU KNOW innocents are going to die so therefore you are willingly deciding to kill innocents for your so called freedom.

[ninepointfive]

The sentiments of the 44% are absolutely legitimate. That said, there's a few things to consider here, and this is being realistic:

1. Gun battles aren't like they are in the movies. Check out the Syria channel on Liveleak, and see what a real war, with real casualties looks like: http://www.liveleak.com/c/syria

2. The cold dead hands types have never felt what its like for cops to surround your home with their guns drawn, or ready to be drawn. That's the critical moment, and there are instincts you will feel very strongly in this situation - fight or flight.

3. The patriot/Liberty movement is fractured and currently no cohesive glue will keep them together.

4. Yes, the public will most likely side with the government - unless they do something stoopid like drop a nuke. They're not going to do that. this is why klamath doesn't need to stick around here to put it mildly.

5. Have you completely gotten over the fear of death? Going into battle, you must be prepared to die and will know this and respect it.

6. Instead of shooting redcoats and torries, you will be shooting neighbors and law enforcement. This is a psychological burden which would need to be addressed and presents a high barrier to entry so to speak.



Now the logistics for success are most definitely there. We don't need 51%, just 3% But currently, no one is motivated enough to step this up with escalation and with enough numbers for success. The numbers are there - the cohesion is not.

[erowe1]

The neighbor would be dead no matter what the intentions were. It is not a valid comparison. When you defend your house you don't know your neighbor going to be killed. When you go into a revolution YOU KNOW innocents are going to die so therefore you are willingly deciding to kill innocents for your so called freedom.

It seems like you're playing word games. I don't know what "go into a revolution" means. Defending your home is defending your home. And I can't see blaming the defender for the results as much as the attacker.

[AuH20]

The sentiments of the 44% are absolutely legitimate. That said, there's a few things to consider here, and this is being realistic:

1. Gun battles aren't like they are in the movies. Check out the Syria channel on Liveleak, and see what a real war, with real casualties looks like: http://www.liveleak.com/c/syria

2. The cold dead hands types have never felt what its like for cops to surround your home with their guns drawn, or ready to be drawn. That's the critical moment, and there are instincts you will feel very strongly in this situation - fight or flight.

3. The patriot/Liberty movement is fractured and currently no cohesive glue will keep them together.

4. Yes, the public will most likely side with the government - unless they do something stoopid like drop a nuke. They're not going to do that. this is why klamath doesn't need to stick around here to put it mildly.

5. Have you completely gotten over the fear of death? Going into battle, you must be prepared to die and will know this and respect it.

6. Instead of shooting redcoats and torries, you will be shooting neighbors and law enforcement. This is a psychological burden which would need to be addressed and presents a high barrier to entry so to speak.



Now the logistics for success are most definitely there. We don't need 51%, just 3% But currently, no one is motivated enough to step this up with escalation and with enough numbers for success. The numbers are there - the cohesion is not.

The 'cohesion' you speak of is only lacking a seminal event. We are up to our knees in gunpowder..................in the dark.

[klamath]

That is already happening,, though less here than elsewhere. I expect the same here eventually.
It has happened before,, and resulted in Spin Doctors,, Public Relations Firms and the MSM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattimer_massacre
Not even a hundred people died, multiply that the hundreds of thousands and millions to get the picture of a real revolution.

[ninepointfive]

The 'cohesion' you speak of is only lacking a seminal event. We are up to our knees in gunpowder..................in the dark.

yes, I needed to mention that. Do you think it's an economic event? Currently, the public at large loves their tyranny.

[erowe1]

2. The cold dead hands types have never felt what its like for cops to surround your home with their guns drawn, or ready to be drawn. That's the critical moment, and there are instincts you will feel very strongly in this situation - fight or flight.


I wouldn't call myself a cold dead hands type, and I don't actually support armed revolution.

But if I did, then even then, I'd still say that the right and expedient thing to do if you're a revolutionary in that situation would be surrender rather than fight. The place for the use of arms, if there were to be one at all, wouldn't be in some fruitless endeavor like that. So that wouldn't really be the critical moment.

[AuH20]

yes, I needed to mention that. Do you think it's an economic event? Currently, the public at large loves their tyranny.

Because tyranny affords them a comfortable lifestyle for the time being. Fed gov has artificially shielded them from the noxious byproducts of this growing tyranny. That's really the factor to gauge at the moment. The comfortability quotient.

[klamath]

It seems like you're playing word games. I don't know what "go into a revolution" means. Defending your home is defending your home. And I can't see blaming the defender for the results as much as the attacker.
Secession is willingly and knowingly starting a revolution. Unless you confine your gettyburg to your seceeded land you intentionally brought violence to me and mine

[ninepointfive]

I wouldn't call myself a cold dead hands type, and I don't actually support armed revolution.

But if I did, then even then, I'd still say that the right and expedient thing to do if you're a revolutionary in that situation would be surrender rather than fight. The place for the use of arms, if there were to be one at all, wouldn't be in some fruitless endeavor like that. So that wouldn't really be the critical moment.


it's not entirely fruitless. Maybe personally, but in that regard - the powers that be may really consider not following orders if enough are KIA on a consistent basis.

[tod evans]

this is why klamath doesn't need to stick around here to put it mildly.

.

Oft times the most ferocious warrior is the one slowest to anger...

[pcosmar]

Not even a hundred people died, multiply that the hundreds of thousands and millions to get the picture of a real revolution.

Hundreds, perhaps thousands have died at the hands of the state,, in several events over the years.

I do not really expect a "revolution". There is factually no way to organize on a large scale.
I do expect Violence from the state. And I also expect some resistance..

But the violence you speak of will be State initiated. It always is.

[erowe1]

Secession is willingly and knowingly starting a revolution. Unless you confine your gettyburg to your seceeded land you intentionally brought violence to me and mine

I look at it the other way around. I'd say that using violence to subjugate other people is where the "knowingly starting" of whatever you want to call it happens. When those people refuse to submit to you, you're the aggressor, not them.

[AuH20]

Secession is willingly and knowingly starting a revolution. Unless you confine your gettyburg to your seceeded land you intentionally brought violence to me and mine

Secession vs. lifelong servitude. Hmmmm. Let me think about that one for a bit.

[erowe1]

it's not entirely fruitless. Maybe personally, but in that regard - the powers that be may really consider not following orders if enough are KIA on a consistent basis.

If revolutionaries were really in a situation where they were serious about killing people or getting killed, then they would need to approach that with purpose and planning, making the most of what resources they have, including their lives. That would include weighing the odds of killing an enemy against the odds of dying in any given situation.

If things come to a situation like what you described. Then the person who wants to make sure they don't give up their guns will have hidden them in multiple different places ahead of time and endure the ransacking of their house rather than choose that moment to die in a situation that the police would easily be able to paint as a justifiable use of force on their part.

[Deborah K]

yes, I needed to mention that. Do you think it's an economic event? Currently, the public at large loves their tyranny.

The public isn't going to love the collapse of the dollar. And the gov't lovers will expect their savior to save them - and voila - you have a similar situation to Katrina: "Please relocate to the Superdome. Thank you for your cooperation." Only nationwide.

[Deborah K]

Hundreds, perhaps thousands have died at the hands of the state,, in several events over the years.

I do not really expect a "revolution". There is factually no way to organize on a large scale.
I do expect Violence from the state. And I also expect some resistance..

But the violence you speak of will be State initiated. It always is.

I believe a revolution is inevitable, I just have no idea when it will be. I also believe it is being organized.

[TheTexan]

Secession is willingly and knowingly starting a revolution. Unless you confine your gettyburg to your seceeded land you intentionally brought violence to me and mine

So, if texas seceded, and the north invaded, starting a war, you would blame texas?

If so thats fucked up

[klamath]

So, if texas seceded, and the north invaded, starting a war, you would blame texas?

If so thats fucked up
I would blame both. Yes you are godamned right if I am looking down at the mangled remains of one of my family members as a result of collateral damage from a texas freedom fighters combat action I would blame THEM.

[TheTexan]

I would blame both. Yes you are godamned right if I am looking down at the mangled remains of one of my family members as a result of collateral damage from a texas freedom fighters combat action I would blame THEM.

Secession is not a combat action. Secession is an act of peace.

[ninepointfive]

I would blame both. Yes you are godamned right if I am looking down at the mangled remains of one of my family members as a result of collateral damage from a texas freedom fighters combat action I would blame THEM.

Hey dude - the huffington post forums, and dailykos are accepting new members. Probably a better fit for you.

[SkepticalMetal]

I'm pretty sure violent revolution is a bad way to go. Never before has a revolution been conducted where massive amounts of private property were destroyed and numerous peaceful individuals killed. The American Revolution was the first revolution in history to be somewhat based on Lockean property rights (in other words, it was a step in the right direction) yet here we are, the United States of Rome. I think rather than violence, we should use education and non-violent resistance, further looking into things like seasteading and perhaps Agorism. With technology the way it is today, I really don't see how all of this isn't possible without violence.

[idiom]

Careful. The left isn't happy with Obama either.

20% of democrats think armed revolution may be necessary.

You think they will be fighting to restore the constitution? They won't be the stay at home and protect my house types either. They will be out there enforcing the greater good on others.

Libertarians vs religious fundamentalists vs marxists vs fascist encumbents with nukes.

That is a solid recipe for a drawn out and very destructive civil war.

[gwax23]

Something will happen. Revolution, Secession, civil war..something. This system cant last forever.

[Czolgosz]

I'm pretty sure violent revolution is a bad way to go. Never before has a revolution been conducted where massive amounts of private property were destroyed and numerous peaceful individuals killed. The American Revolution was the first revolution in history to be somewhat based on Lockean property rights (in other words, it was a step in the right direction) yet here we are, the United States of Rome. I think rather than violence, we should use education and non-violent resistance, further looking into things like seasteading and perhaps Agorism. With technology the way it is today, I really don't see how all of this isn't possible without violence.


Violence will find YOU.

[SkepticalMetal]

Violence will find YOU.

"Political revolutions do not often accomplish anything of genuine value; their one undoubted effect is simply to throw out one gang of thieves and put in another. After a revolution, of course, the successful revolutionists always try to convince doubters that they have achieved great things, and usually they hang any man who denies it." - H. L. Mencken

[Czolgosz]

"Political revolutions do not often accomplish anything of genuine value; their one undoubted effect is simply to throw out one gang of thieves and put in another. After a revolution, of course, the successful revolutionists always try to convince doubters that they have achieved great things, and usually they hang any man who denies it." - H. L. Mencken

Indeed. Any system w/ Humans involved will be easily fucked. Freedom requires donor blood, fuh eva.

[SkepticalMetal]

Indeed. Any system w/ Humans involved will be easily fucked. Freedom requires donor blood, fuh eva.
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand.

[69360]

So when we reach 100% of D and R's there won't be anyone to revolt against.

Wasn't the last revolution in this country won by 3%?

[AuH20]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand.

I think he's stressing eternal vigilance in the inevitable presence of atrophy.

[gwax23]

Like I said before violence is Inevitable. Its not if only when. As Libertarians we have 2 choices. Stay under the radar with our gold and non perishables and hope for the best or use the opportunity to advance our goals. With the power structure shaken up and the chaos ensuing it open a huge door for us to actually realize our ideals.

Im not saying bloody revolution but definitely secession.

[green73]

Not likely..

More indoctrinated,, lower intelligence,, increased conformity to propaganda,, might lead to less guns.

Agreed. Intelligence is much more than being able to go through the meat grinder of schooling. Schooling just selects the best robots.

[Czolgosz]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I fully understand.

I glossed over an important word in in the quote, "Political."

[green73]

Not even a hundred people died, multiply that the hundreds of thousands and millions to get the picture of a real revolution.

Was not the fall communism 20 years ago a revolution?

[fr33]

While there might be a revolution, I do not think we will be free in our lifetimes.

People may oppose the tyranny of the feds but they still love tyranny in their own communities.

I see more and more laws being passed in our nearby rural, conservative, community. They won't allow new trailer houses or a new apartment complex. Recently they made it law that to improve your property in any way (roof, shed, fence, etc) you must get permission from the city council. This is just a little town of 1500 people.

A successful violent revolution might end the current regime but the general populace are not ready to be free. Educating more people is the only way we can be free.

[TheTexan]

While there might be a revolution, I do not think we will be free in our lifetimes.

People may oppose the tyranny of the feds but they still love tyranny in their own communities.

I see more and more laws being passed in our nearby rural, conservative, community. They won't allow new trailer houses or a new apartment complex. Recently they made it law that to improve your property in any way (roof, shed, fence, etc) you must get permission from the city council. This is just a little town of 1500 people.

A successful violent revolution might end the current regime but the general populace are not ready to be free. Educating more people is the only way we can be free.

These next few decades we will see massive chaos and changes worldwide. It is possible that after all is said and done, freedom will gain a foothold somewhere in the world.

There is a demand for freedom. Granted, only a tiny fraction of people want freedom. But that demand is there. Amongst the chaos, the Market will find a way.

[TheTexan]

Maybe we can do a Kickstart-like project to buy a small country? :)

[green73]

The State = violence. Just get rid of the state.

[klamath]

Hey dude - the huffington post forums, and dailykos are accepting new members. Probably a better fit for you.
Hey dude you are an extremely IGNORANT person.

[klamath]

Was not the fall communism 20 years ago a revolution?
The thread is about armed (Violent) and you know it.

[klamath]

While there might be a revolution, I do not think we will be free in our lifetimes.

People may oppose the tyranny of the feds but they still love tyranny in their own communities.

I see more and more laws being passed in our nearby rural, conservative, community. They won't allow new trailer houses or a new apartment complex. Recently they made it law that to improve your property in any way (roof, shed, fence, etc) you must get permission from the city council. This is just a little town of 1500 people.

A successful violent revolution might end the current regime but the general populace are not ready to be free. Educating more people is the only way we can be free. Someone that has a clue. A free texas republic would be no more free than a state of Texas and that is why a violent secession would be just that, aggravated violence.

[TheTexan]

Someone that has a clue. A free texas republic would be no more free than a state of Texas and that is why a violent secession would be just that, aggravated violence.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBg23AqZlJI

I hope you watch but I don't think you will

[klamath]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBg23AqZlJI

I hope you watch but I don't think you will No I won't because I have a bandwidth limit and I sure am not going to burn it all on a hour and fourteen minute video that has lead you to the belief that a violent revolution would make people free.

[SkepticalMetal]

Someone that has a clue. A free texas republic would be no more free than a state of Texas and that is why a violent secession would be just that, aggravated violence.
I would prefer decentralization and then the eventual abolishing of the state, over some monolithic power where a transition towards a free society would be very far-fetched. The more decentralized you are, the better chance you have of protecting more of your rights without liberal infringement from a high power.

[klamath]

I would prefer decentralization and then the eventual abolishing of the state, over some monolithic power where a transition towards a free society would be very far-fetched. The more decentralized you are, the better chance you have of protecting more of your rights without liberal infringement from a high power.
I agree the smaller the more local government the more free it can be. It don't necessary mean it automatically will be though. I personally don't think texas would be more free. Some ways yes, some ways worse. It wouldn't be worth the cost of lives a violent secession would bring. It is a solid proven fact of history that secession will be met with violence. When 40% of the population of Taxes is screaming they are being torn from the Union against their wishes is all it would take.

[TheTexan]

No I won't because I have a bandwidth limit and I sure am not going to burn it all on a hour and fourteen minute video that has lead you to the belief that a violent revolution would make people free.

As long as you have the belief that secession=revolution, you will NEVER be free.

Until you grow a pair, you will always be a slave.

[TheTexan]

It wouldn't be worth the cost of lives a violent secession would bring.

There is no such thing as a violent secession. There is a violent invasion of a sovereign nation, but no such thing as what you just described.

I'm sure back during the days when only blacks were slaves, they all thought "gee whiz, I'd like to be free, but it wouldn't be worth my masters getting upset and taking it out on the other slaves."

[Lucille]

AmCon reviewed a new book with what sounds to me like some great ideas on how to bust up this "TBTF" country:

What Keeps the States United?
Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1589809572/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1589809572&linkCode=as2&tag=theamericonse-20), Donald Livingston, ed., Pelican, 272 pages
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-keeps-the-states-united/


The American polity is beset by seemingly intractable problems: widespread, long-term unemployment; stagnating income; wealth increasingly concentrated among the few; trillion-dollar annual deficits; interminable wars.

Constitutional liberties, dating back in some instances to Magna Carta, are being jettisoned, ostensibly to protect against terrorism. Through the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress has empowered the president to imprison without charges or trial any American whom he decides, based on secret evidence, is a threat to national security. Barack Obama and his attorney general claim the president has the right to execute summarily anyone in the world—not excluding Americans—without due process of law. The Pentagon has been lending unmanned drones to local and state law enforcement agencies to spy on citizens without search warrants.

The 2008 election was viewed by many as a repudiation of torture and other dangers to civil liberties supported by George W. Bush. Five years later Obama seemingly has doubled down on policies that he had condemned. Despite voter angst, America’s political institutions keep serving up more of the same. Public disapproval of Congress has lately been as high as 90-95 percent. The system is widely seen as “broken.”

According to Rethinking American Union for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Donald Livingston, those seeking a cure for America’s political dysfunction should consider a rarely mentioned topic, that of size and scale. The thesis of this collection of essays is that American government has grown too large and too centralized to be compatible with free, effective, or truly representative politics. The authors agree on the unacceptability of top-down government as practiced in this country: having 435 House members, 100 senators, nine Supreme Court justices, and one president rule more than 300 million people in one-size-fits-all fashion. The authors share the belief, dating back to ancient Greece, that, to be genuinely self-governing, republics must be small in population and territory, i.e., wholly unlike America. They consider ways to devolve political power to smaller, more manageable units of government. With varying degrees of persuasiveness, the authors address philosophical, political, moral, and constitutional issues bearing on such a task.

[SkepticalMetal]

There is no such thing as a violent secession. There is a violent invasion of a sovereign nation, but no such thing as what you just described.

I'm sure back during the days when only blacks were slaves, they all thought "gee whiz, I'd like to be free, but it wouldn't be worth my masters getting upset and taking it out on the other slaves."
This. When the South seceded, they even offered to pay their portion of the national debt. The violence is never by the secessionists, and always by the monolithic state which attempts to grasp on to them with all of it's might.

[klamath]

As long as you have the belief that secession=revolution, you will NEVER be free.

Until you grow a pair, you will always be a slave.
Funny. Until you grow up you will never figure out how to be free.
What does the AH 64 pilot say in this video about having a pair....

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f5e_1201932312
Oh by the way I was in chock 3.

[tod evans]

Well......

What we have isn't working for a fairly large portion of the population.

So given that the median IQ is 100, what kind of reaction can one realistically expect?

Stop and think.....Expect from both the statists and the anti-statists..

[klamath]

This. When the South seceded, they even offered to pay their portion of the national debt. The violence is never by the secessionists, and always by the monolithic state which attempts to grasp on to them with all of it's might.
Yeaw and then the south promptly sent troops into east TN when they wanted to secede from the confederacy.

[SkepticalMetal]

Yeaw and then the south promptly sent troops into east TN when they wanted to secede from the confederacy.
I'm not trying to idolize the Confederacy. After all, they were still a government. I'm afraid though that you may have missed my whole point - I was attempting to say that anyone who tries to get out of some sort of Union is not going to be committing the act of violence; it will be the monolithic state. This applied to the Confederacy with East Tennessee, regardless of the fact that they were pro-Union. The American colonies had the right to secede from the British Empire, but this did not grant them the right to invade, say, the Philippines as they later did. It's simply a matter of pointing out who is in the right and who is in the wrong in a particular situation of secession.