Before I begin this, let me emphasize and make it abundantly clear.

I am NOT advocating violence of any sort here. Again, I AM NOT ENCOURAGING, ADVOCATING OR ANYWAY OTHERWISE, SUPPORTING THE USE OF VIOLENCE PERIOD!

But I have a question, I"ve mulled it around thought about, tried to do some reading, and well...nothing.

Not a lot out there on the topic. Which is this, we have certain amendments in our Constitution, which were put there, for one reason.

To ensure that the People, and the individual states themselves, could through force if need be, effectively resist tyranny or unconstitutional acts against them by the Federal Government.

The entire system was set up, to prevent such a thing from happening, because the framers had seen in history, that every time mankind has tried a Republic, we wind up with Caesar, or lil Kim instead!

So in an attempt to prevent that, things like the Second Amendment were added to the Constitution.

As well as the Tenth amendment etc....

But, here's the question. Do we really need them there? Could the people, resist, with the use of arms our own government if we had too?

Yeah I know all the internet rambos out there and the whole "out of my cold dead hands" thing.

But lots and lots of that is bluster. Believe  me, as anyone who's been shot at can attest, when the bullets are flying by your head, so close you hear them buzzing and wizzing by.

Rambo suddenly becomes Michael Moore, looking for the nearest entrance to the all you can eat buffet!

With our second amendment rights degraded and under attack, with the State's rights being shoved aside as well.

At this point I don't think, we could effectively resist say the tyrannical takeover of Obozo (just an example I don't think he'd really try it, he's dumb, not stupid enough to start a civil war).

But, if one did break out, would it be for those Americans who hold the Constitution dear and sacred, just as it was for the Confederacy?

(Can I say that word, or have we banned the use of the nations name at the time as well)

I'm surprised I'm the first to respond to the question you have put to us.  In short.....no.  I don't think we could.  Not because we don't have the heart.  But guns will be no match for the weapons the government has at its disposal.   When the Bill of Rights was written, it was very plausible for an armed populace to overthrow a tyrannical government.  It was guns against guns.  Cannon against cannon.  Now, it would be our guns against stealth bombers and drone strikes.  It worries me.  I fear it's going to come to that some day.  I hope you are right in that Obama wouldn't be stupid enough to start a civil war.  Sometimes I wonder, though. 

Quote from: daidalos on February 11, 2016, 12:08:41 PM
Before I begin this, let me emphasize and make it abundantly clear.

I am NOT advocating violence of any sort here. Again, I AM NOT ENCOURAGING, ADVOCATING OR ANYWAY OTHERWISE, SUPPORTING THE USE OF VIOLENCE PERIOD!

But I have a question, I"ve mulled it around thought about, tried to do some reading, and well...nothing.

Not a lot out there on the topic. Which is this, we have certain amendments in our Constitution, which were put there, for one reason.

To ensure that the People, and the individual states themselves, could through force if need be, effectively resist tyranny or unconstitutional acts against them by the Federal Government.

The entire system was set up, to prevent such a thing from happening, because the framers had seen in history, that every time mankind has tried a Republic, we wind up with Caesar, or lil Kim instead!

So in an attempt to prevent that, things like the Second Amendment were added to the Constitution.

As well as the Tenth amendment etc....

But, here's the question. Do we really need them there? Could the people, resist, with the use of arms our own government if we had too?

Yeah I know all the internet rambos out there and the whole "out of my cold dead hands" thing.

But lots and lots of that is bluster. Believe  me, as anyone who's been shot at can attest, when the bullets are flying by your head, so close you hear them buzzing and wizzing by.

Rambo suddenly becomes Michael Moore, looking for the nearest entrance to the all you can eat buffet!

With our second amendment rights degraded and under attack, with the State's rights being shoved aside as well.

At this point I don't think, we could effectively resist say the tyrannical takeover of Obozo (just an example I don't think he'd really try it, he's dumb, not stupid enough to start a civil war).

But, if one did break out, would it be for those Americans who hold the Constitution dear and sacred, just as it was for the Confederacy?

(Can I say that word, or have we banned the use of the nations name at the time as well)

All that, and you completely neglect the Confederacy?
Your answer is in the Civil war.

QuoteBut, here's the question. Do we really need them there? Could the people, resist, with the use of arms our own government if we had too?

I don't think you need to worry.  Our liberals are cowards and afraid of guns.  I think this is one thing that really scared the left when the TEA party formed and marched on Washington. 

They tried to counter with the OWS crowds.  A bunch of cry baby potheads setting up their "safe spaces".  There are also an awful lot of vets and policemen who aren't going to go along with enforcing any kind of tyrannical rule by the government. 

Quote from: daidalos on February 11, 2016, 12:08:41 PM
Before I begin this, let me emphasize and make it abundantly clear.

I am NOT advocating violence of any sort here. Again, I AM NOT ENCOURAGING, ADVOCATING OR ANYWAY OTHERWISE, SUPPORTING THE USE OF VIOLENCE PERIOD!

But I have a question, I"ve mulled it around thought about, tried to do some reading, and well...nothing.

Not a lot out there on the topic. Which is this, we have certain amendments in our Constitution, which were put there, for one reason.

To ensure that the People, and the individual states themselves, could through force if need be, effectively resist tyranny or unconstitutional acts against them by the Federal Government.

The entire system was set up, to prevent such a thing from happening, because the framers had seen in history, that every time mankind has tried a Republic, we wind up with Caesar, or lil Kim instead!

So in an attempt to prevent that, things like the Second Amendment were added to the Constitution.

As well as the Tenth amendment etc....

But, here's the question. Do we really need them there? Could the people, resist, with the use of arms our own government if we had too?

Yeah I know all the internet rambos out there and the whole "out of my cold dead hands" thing.

But lots and lots of that is bluster. Believe  me, as anyone who's been shot at can attest, when the bullets are flying by your head, so close you hear them buzzing and wizzing by.

Rambo suddenly becomes Michael Moore, looking for the nearest entrance to the all you can eat buffet!

With our second amendment rights degraded and under attack, with the State's rights being shoved aside as well.

At this point I don't think, we could effectively resist say the tyrannical takeover of Obozo (just an example I don't think he'd really try it, he's dumb, not stupid enough to start a civil war).

But, if one did break out, would it be for those Americans who hold the Constitution dear and sacred, just as it was for the Confederacy?

(Can I say that word, or have we banned the use of the nations name at the time as well)

To answer your question, "Yes, The People  certainly do have the capability".  For comparison, consider the people of Syria.  The civilian population of Syria had been disarmed by law since the inception of their tyrannical government.  The Syrian military was the 7th largest army in the world in control of a country whose population ranked far below 7th among the nations of the world.  Estimates are perhaps as high as 40% supported the regime largely out of loyalty to benefits received through the ruling regime.  Yet 60% of the people wholly disarmed were enough to bring down an army possessing an overwhelming imbalance of firepower at the outset of the unrest.  It is the nature of Civil Wars which makes them particularly ill-suited for maintaining military advantage.  No country remains civilized after a short duration of civil war/unrest.  The existence of a civil society is a necessary aspect of maintaining a modern functioning army.  No tyranny has maintained control of its subjects for long without the support of external assistance from a civilized society.  Syria was no exception.

The real advantages the Syrian Army possessed at the outset quickly vanished.  Their subjects enjoyed far less advantage than the arms maintained by Americans even under the current US restrictions.  Even with external assistance from "civil" societies such as Russia and Iran the issue is still in doubt.  There is a limit to the amount of assistance which even Russia and Iran can contribute no thanks to Obama.  Russia is an oil company masquerading as a country.  Iran is a religious cult in charge of an oil company pretending to be a country.  Even with such dedicated external military support from these external civil societies the issue is very much in doubt.  At some point it comes down to a matter of wills or "hearts and minds" if you will.

Want other examples... Libya, Egypt, Laos, Argentina, Chile.  And lets not forget, the entirety of the former East Bloc nations under the  control of the former Soviet Union.  You would be hard pressed to DESIGN a more disarmed society under the control of a more concentrated military might.  Yet it not only fell, it fell with hardly a shot fired.  It started in East Germany when the Soviets blinked in putting down a protest of 100,000 strong.  They announced they would allow the protests to continue rather than suffer the impacts of brutally putting down the protest of so many through violent means thinking the protesters would lose interest in time.  Overnight the protests grew to over 1 million.  Within days 90% of the entire populace took to the streets.  Those in the military were a part of this same populace and obviously possessed similar sentiment.  The government was powerless to stop the inevitable.  Even had they issued orders to suppress the uprising the result would more likely have been their own lynching.  They fled the country rather than suffer the wrath of their former victims.

Soon similar protests of 90% or more erupted throughout all the former Soviet Satellite nations.  Repression was pointless.  Romania being the only exception in accepting the inevitable.  For those not in the know, look-up the eventual outcome in Romania.  It made the vengeance thrust upon Mussolini seem like a no-contact badminton game.  Absolutely brutal video if you haven't seen it.  In the end, even the Soviet Union itself collapsed after a communist coup attempted to seize control from the more liberal Communists in control of The Party.  The coup failed when similar uprisings of virtually the entirety of the populace rose up, putting an end to the attempted coup.  Control was never returned to the former liberal Communists in control of The Party or the hard line Communists who had instigated the coup.

The circumstances enjoyed by the US population far and away surpass that enjoyed by many nations which have succeeded in taking back the authority delegated by The People.  Never question the ability of a large block of discontented citizenry to redress their grievances when staunchly held.  The real question one should ask isn't whether The People have this ability it is what would happen throughout the remainder of the globe while The People worked out "their differences" with a tyrannical and intransigent government.  And would we be subsequently invaded from external forces in the process of correcting a government ignorant of its Constitutional charter. 

I guess it's the warrior, not the weapon they wield after all then. Thanks for the replies it was educational and interesting to see what others think.

Solar, I intentionally ignored the civil war.

Things were a bit different than they are today. And a number of the reasons that war was fought, no longer even exist today.

For example most citizen's weren't as quite as willing to throw away their rights in that day, for some perceived security, as they are today.

There were states who wanted to hang onto slavery, we don't have that today etc...But the idea that things could or would go the same way, is interesting. And scary at the same time.

Quote from: daidalos on February 25, 2016, 08:10:11 AM
I guess it's the warrior, not the weapon they wield after all then. Thanks for the replies it was educational and interesting to see what others think.

Solar, I intentionally ignored the civil war.

Things were a bit different than they are today. And a number of the reasons that war was fought, no longer even exist today.

For example most citizen's weren't as quite as willing to throw away their rights in that day, for some perceived security, as they are today.

There were states who wanted to hang onto slavery, we don't have that today etc...But the idea that things could or would go the same way, is interesting. And scary at the same time.

No, those were excuses. The truth behind the war was power and control by an oppressive govt. over a people wanting no part of their govt.

Quote from: daidalos on February 25, 2016, 08:10:11 AM
I guess it's the warrior, not the weapon they wield after all then. Thanks for the replies it was educational and interesting to see what others think.

Solar, I intentionally ignored the civil war.

Things were a bit different than they are today. And a number of the reasons that war was fought, no longer even exist today.

For example most citizen's weren't as quite as willing to throw away their rights in that day, for some perceived security, as they are today.

There were states who wanted to hang onto slavery, we don't have that today etc...But the idea that things could or would go the same way, is interesting. And scary at the same time.

Whenever I read/hear someone talk about war, particularly civil war, civil unrest, taking up arms - I try to imagine where those folks live, relax, eat, sleep - and ask them, without any of those comforts, how would you fare?  Same goes for the rioters, the rambo types, who talk the nonsense talk, but upon reflection, couldn't muster up the courage to spend a week in the woods without a motor home. 

"Roughing it" is so cool, as long as there's a hot shower and a warm, soft bed without ants, waiting for you.  A few counties away, the annual "Crossing of the Dan" event was somewhat cancelled' because of weather.  The real participants, fleeing the British, had no shoes, had not eaten a regular meal in weeks, and were at the point of exhaustion and demoralization.  With little time to spare, they crossed the Dan River, east of Danville, VA., taking & keeping the ferries with them - leaving the Brits just outside of gun range on the edge of a wide, fast flowing river in the middle of the winter.  I like to hope our younger generation "has it in them", to do something similar, if needed - 'cause I'm too soft!  (yea, those days of invincibility are long past for me, )

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar
This has been an interesting "study", a good reminder of the reality.  Hollywood depicts war in the same way those WW1 Posters, "Fight for the Fatherland!" did ... for honor, glory, come home a hero.  Tell that to the guys who were there.  Well, here's one guy who tried, and was told to "sit down and shut up!"

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-bill-clinton-snaps-at-veteran-during-speech-shut-up-and-listen-to-my-answer/

What is more troubling, a fCommander in Chief with no sympathy for his soldiers, or a Secretary of State who completely ignores their pleas for help while under attack?  IMO, their distrust and anger has been justified.  So at what point do people rise up against seemingly unbeatable weaponry - when they get pissed enough to die, to earn back what was lost.

Quote from: danielnash on March 01, 2016, 11:24:37 PM
I am really like it very much for the interesting info in this blog that to this website is providing the wonderful info in this blog that to utilize the great technology in this blog.

Hey, Danny. Whatcha talkin' 'bout here?  Could it POSSIBLY be those links in your spam here?

Quote from: quiller on March 02, 2016, 01:27:03 AM
Hey, Danny. Whatcha talkin' 'bout here?  Could it POSSIBLY be those links in your spam here?

A member for 11 months and that the best he could do.